Donald Trump Announces 2016 White House Bid

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
32,837
2,482
113
U.S. judge agrees to appoint special master in Trump search case
Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Sarah N. Lynch
Publishing date:Sep 05, 2022 • 15 hours ago • 3 minute read • 10 Comments

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday agreed to appoint a special master to review records seized by the FBI during its unprecedented search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate, a move that is likely to delay the Justice Department’s ongoing criminal investigation.


In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in West Palm Beach, Florida, said the special master will be tasked with reviewing documents the FBI seized that could be subject not just to attorney-client privilege, but also to executive privilege.


She ordered the Justice Department to put its criminal investigation on hold, but said she would permit U.S. intelligence officials to continue conducting a classification review, as well as a national security damage assessment review.

“In addition to being deprived of potentially significant personal documents, which alone creates a real harm, plaintiff faces an unquantifiable potential harm by way of improper disclosure of sensitive information to the public,” wrote Cannon, who was appointed by Trump in 2020 just months before he left office.


Cannon gave Trump’s legal team and the Justice Department until Friday to file a proposed list of special master candidates.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Cannon’s ruling. Representatives for Trump also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump, without evidence, has accused the Justice Department of launching a partisan witch-hunt against him, and his lawyers argued that the appointment of an independent third-party to review the materials would be an important check on the government.

Trump is under investigation for removing government records, some of which were marked as highly classified, from the White House after he departed in January 2021, and storing them in his home at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach.


The Justice Department has said it is also investigating possible obstruction, after the FBI uncovered evidence that Trump’s team may have deliberately concealed classified documents when agents tried to recover them in June.

At that same meeting on June 3, Trump’s representatives falsely certified they had conducted a diligent search and returned all classified materials to the government – a claim that was later disproved after the FBI recovered about 33 boxes containing more than 11,000 government records and photos and more than 100 records marked as classified.


Trump’s legal team waited until two weeks after the FBI’s Aug. 8 search before asking the court to appoint a special master – an independent third party who is sometimes assigned in sensitive cases to review materials that could be covered by attorney-client privilege.


A special master was used, for instance, to review materials seized in the searches of the homes and offices of two of Trump’s former attorneys – Rudy Giuliani and Michael Cohen.

Trump’s request, however, was unique.

Not only did his team want the special master to review traditional attorney-client privileged material, but they also told Cannon the special master was appropriate because some of the records could be subject to executive privilege – a legal doctrine that shields some White House communications.

The Justice Department has staunchly resisted Trump’s request, saying he cannot claim executive privilege because the records do not belong to him; they belong to the government.

“He is no longer the president,” Jay Bratt, the department’s top counterintelligence lawyer, told Cannon at a Sept. 1 hearing. “And because he is no longer president, he did not have a right to take those documents.”


The Justice Department had also argued that it made no sense to appoint a special master because its filter team – a group of agents who are not part of the investigation – had completed its work.

The agents located and set aside a limited number of records that could be subject to attorney-client privilege.

The rest of the records have already been reviewed by the investigative team for the ongoing criminal probe. At the same time, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is already conducting a parallel review as part of a national security damage assessment.

Many former Justice Department attorneys, both Democrats and Republicans, have criticized Trump’s call for a special master.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr, whom Trump appointed, called a special master “a waste of time” in an interview on Fox News.

A group of former federal prosecutors who all served in Republican administrations also had filed an amicus brief in the case, saying Trump’s request was “unprecedented,” filed in a court with no jurisdiction, and “manifestly frivolous.”
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
2,637
1,642
113
I have caught them before .
The thing that's annoying is that when you do catch one, suddenly in it's mind every single bad thing that's happened that day is YOUR fault and they're bound and determined to make YOU pay. Maybe don't pretend to be a fish and this wouldn't happen to you feather-brain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
25,322
5,947
113
B.C.
The thing that's annoying is that when you do catch one, suddenly in it's mind every single bad thing that's happened that day is YOUR fault and they're bound and determined to make YOU pay. Maybe don't pretend to be a fish and this wouldn't happen to you feather-brain.
Maybe you should just talk about things you know ? Fishing on the west coast is not your strong suit .
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
2,637
1,642
113
Maybe you should just talk about things you know ? Fishing on the west coast is not your strong suit .
ROFLMAO - been fishing on the west coast longer than you've likely been alive jr ;) But nice try ;) If you've ever hauled up any seabird that got tangled in your line and found they were happy about it, you go ahead and tell us about it :) My dad tried to untangle a bird ONCE when i was a kid bare handed and after that we always put on the leather gloves.

But sure - maybe you've only encountered the 'nice' birds who are thankful for your kind assistance in untangling them :) Sounds plausable.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
25,322
5,947
113
B.C.
ROFLMAO - been fishing on the west coast longer than you've likely been alive jr ;) But nice try ;) If you've ever hauled up any seabird that got tangled in your line and found they were happy about it, you go ahead and tell us about it :) My dad tried to untangle a bird ONCE when i was a kid bare handed and after that we always put on the leather gloves.

But sure - maybe you've only encountered the 'nice' birds who are thankful for your kind assistance in untangling them :) Sounds plausable.
Jr. lol . Your dad but didn’t I say I . It swallowed my bait whole pretty powerful they are . Ever see whales play catch ?
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
2,637
1,642
113
but didn’t I say I .
Oh - so it wasn't even you? So you have no idea what you're talking about but have no problem claiming others don't.
It swallowed my bait whole pretty powerful they are .
Oh so now it IS you again. Sounds like you're just making shit up again. This sounds like you're non existant online leadership voting.

You obviously have no clue. Most don't hit the bait, they get tangled in the line moving around the bait. So - if you had the slightest clue you'd have realized my comments were pretty accurate.

I get why you sometimes feel the need to pretend you're something you're not. But it's not a good look and you aren't fooling people who actually know there shit kiddo.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
25,322
5,947
113
B.C.
Oh - so it wasn't even you? So you have no idea what you're talking about but have no problem claiming others don't.

Oh so now it IS you again. Sounds like you're just making shit up again. This sounds like you're non existant online leadership voting.

You obviously have no clue. Most don't hit the bait, they get tangled in the line moving around the bait. So - if you had the slightest clue you'd have realized my comments were pretty accurate.

I get why you sometimes feel the need to pretend you're something you're not. But it's not a good look and you aren't fooling people who actually know there shit kiddo.
So you want a pissing match , great . You know SFA about the wet coast . Yes they will take the bait , are you calling me a liar ? Ever see a whale go onto the rocks ?
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
32,837
2,482
113
New Mexico banishes Trump ally from office for insurrection
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Morgan Lee
Publishing date:Sep 06, 2022 • 14 hours ago • 4 minute read • Join the conversation

SANTA FE, N.M. — A New Mexico state district court judge on Tuesday disqualified county commissioner and Cowboys for Trump cofounder Couy Griffin from holding public office for engaging in insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.


The judgement from state District Court Judge Francis Mathew permanently bars Griffin from federal and local public office. It arrived amid a spate of lawsuits aimed at sidelining political candidates and elected officials linked to the Capitol riots.


Griffin was previously convicted in federal court of a misdemeanor for entering Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, without going inside the building. He was sentenced to 14 days and given credit for time served.

The new ruling immediately removes Griffin from his position as a commissioner in Otero County in southern New Mexico. He also is barred from serving as a presidential elector.

“Mr. Griffin aided the insurrection even though he did not personally engage in violence,” Mathew wrote. “By joining the mob and trespassing on restricted Capitol grounds, Mr. Griffin contributed to delaying Congress’s election-certification proceedings.”


Griffin said he was notified of his removal from office by Otero County staff, who prevented him from accessing his work computer and office space at a county building in Alamogordo.

Griffin, who served as his own legal counsel at a two-day bench trial in August, called the ruling a “total disgrace” that disenfranchises his constituents in Otero County.

“The actions that are being taken are, I believe, perfect evidence of the tyranny that we’re right now living under,” Griffin said. “The left continues to speak about democracy being under attack, but is this democracy? Whenever you’re removed from office by the civil courts by the opinion of a liberal judge.”

A flurry of similar lawsuits around the country are seeking to punish politicians who took part in Jan. 6 under provisions of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which holds that anyone who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution can be barred from office for engaging in insurrection or rebellion.


The provisions were put in place shortly after the Civil War.

“It was written to deal with former Confederates … and it’s basically been dormant ever since with one or two odd exceptions,” said Gerard Magliocca, a professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. “There was nothing else that could be described as an insurrection against the Constitution until Jan. 6.”

At trial, Griffin invoked free speech guarantees in his defense and argued that removing him from office would cut against the will of the people and set a “dangerous precedent.” Elected in 2018, Griffin withstood a recall vote last year but isn’t running for reelection or other office in November.

Mathew wrote that Griffin’s arguments “disregard that the Constitution itself reflects the will of the people.”


Griffin “overlooks that his own insurrectionary conduct on January 6 sought to subvert the results of a free and fair election, which would have disenfranchised millions of voters.”

The lawsuit against Griffin was brought by three plaintiffs in New Mexico with assistance from the Washington-based Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Supportive briefs were filed by the NAACP and progressive watchdog group Common Cause. A federal court declined a recent request to take up the case.

Tuesday’s judgement is “a historic win for accountability for the January 6th insurrection and the efforts to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in the United States,” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics President Noah Bookbinder said in a statement.


Griffin, a Republican, forged a group of rodeo acquaintances in 2019 into the promotional group called Cowboys for Trump that staged horseback parades to spread President Donald Trump’s conservative message about gun rights, immigration controls and abortion restrictions.

This year, Griffin voted twice as a county commissioner against certifying New Mexico’s June 7 primary election, in a standoff over election integrity fueled by conspiracy theories about the security of voting equipment in the Republican-dominated county.

Two other commissioners eventually agreed to certify, but Griffin cast the loan dissenting vote while acknowledging that he had no specific basis for questioning the results of the election — attributing his decision to “my gut feeling and my own intuition.”


Griffin is among a dozen people charged in the Jan. 6 riot that had either held public office or ran for a government leadership post in the two and a half years before the attack. Of those, seven have been convicted of crimes for their participation.

Unlike Griffin, the members of Congress targeted for disqualification were neither charged nor convicted of crimes associated with the Capitol riot.

In Georgia, a federal judge allowed a 14th Amendment challenge against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green to advance, but a state administrative law judge found there wasn’t sufficient evidence to back voters’ claims that she had engaged in insurrection, and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said Greene was qualified to run.


Greene won her primary, and the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the decision last week to leave her on the ballot. The federal appeal is pending.

In North Carolina, a federal judge blocked the state elections board from formally examining whether U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn, who spoke at the rally that preceded the riot, should remain on the state’s May 17 primary ballot.

Cawthorn narrowly lost that election, and later in May a federal appeals court reversed the lower court decision. The panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the trial judge got it wrong when he ruled that an 1872 law that removed office-holding disqualifications from most ex-Confederates also exempted current members of Congress like Cawthorn. The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed as moot because Cawthorn isn’t on the November ballot.

Arizona state courts have kept U.S. Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs and a state legislator on the ballot amid efforts to disqualify them. A judge agreed in April with the lawmakers that Congress created no enforcement mechanism for the 14th Amendment, barring a criminal conviction.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
2,637
1,642
113
So you want a pissing match , great . You know SFA about the wet coast . Yes they will take the bait , are you calling me a liar ? Ever see a whale go onto the rocks ?
So - you jump in out of the blue and claim i know nothing about what i'm discussing when it's PAINFULLY obvious that in fact you don't, and you think i'm the one who wants a pissing match.

It's painfully obvious you're just making shit up now. Just as you assured us all you 'voted for the leader' on line and that you got all kinds of emails from the party saying "dear member", which nobody gets. Pretending that they don't get tangled in the lines is a pretty obvious proof you don't actually have experience with it.

Grew up on the "wet" coast, and spent at least a month a year actually living on the water, caught enough salmon to sink a boat and enough cod to make half the country honorary neufoundlanders. Sorry kiddo - you're fooling no one.
 

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
4,837
2,874
113
Edmonton
New Mexico banishes Trump ally from office for insurrection
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Morgan Lee
Publishing date:Sep 06, 2022 • 14 hours ago • 4 minute read • Join the conversation

SANTA FE, N.M. — A New Mexico state district court judge on Tuesday disqualified county commissioner and Cowboys for Trump cofounder Couy Griffin from holding public office for engaging in insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.


The judgement from state District Court Judge Francis Mathew permanently bars Griffin from federal and local public office. It arrived amid a spate of lawsuits aimed at sidelining political candidates and elected officials linked to the Capitol riots.


Griffin was previously convicted in federal court of a misdemeanor for entering Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, without going inside the building. He was sentenced to 14 days and given credit for time served.

The new ruling immediately removes Griffin from his position as a commissioner in Otero County in southern New Mexico. He also is barred from serving as a presidential elector.

“Mr. Griffin aided the insurrection even though he did not personally engage in violence,” Mathew wrote. “By joining the mob and trespassing on restricted Capitol grounds, Mr. Griffin contributed to delaying Congress’s election-certification proceedings.”


Griffin said he was notified of his removal from office by Otero County staff, who prevented him from accessing his work computer and office space at a county building in Alamogordo.

Griffin, who served as his own legal counsel at a two-day bench trial in August, called the ruling a “total disgrace” that disenfranchises his constituents in Otero County.

“The actions that are being taken are, I believe, perfect evidence of the tyranny that we’re right now living under,” Griffin said. “The left continues to speak about democracy being under attack, but is this democracy? Whenever you’re removed from office by the civil courts by the opinion of a liberal judge.”

A flurry of similar lawsuits around the country are seeking to punish politicians who took part in Jan. 6 under provisions of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which holds that anyone who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution can be barred from office for engaging in insurrection or rebellion.


The provisions were put in place shortly after the Civil War.

“It was written to deal with former Confederates … and it’s basically been dormant ever since with one or two odd exceptions,” said Gerard Magliocca, a professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. “There was nothing else that could be described as an insurrection against the Constitution until Jan. 6.”

At trial, Griffin invoked free speech guarantees in his defense and argued that removing him from office would cut against the will of the people and set a “dangerous precedent.” Elected in 2018, Griffin withstood a recall vote last year but isn’t running for reelection or other office in November.

Mathew wrote that Griffin’s arguments “disregard that the Constitution itself reflects the will of the people.”


Griffin “overlooks that his own insurrectionary conduct on January 6 sought to subvert the results of a free and fair election, which would have disenfranchised millions of voters.”

The lawsuit against Griffin was brought by three plaintiffs in New Mexico with assistance from the Washington-based Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Supportive briefs were filed by the NAACP and progressive watchdog group Common Cause. A federal court declined a recent request to take up the case.

Tuesday’s judgement is “a historic win for accountability for the January 6th insurrection and the efforts to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in the United States,” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics President Noah Bookbinder said in a statement.


Griffin, a Republican, forged a group of rodeo acquaintances in 2019 into the promotional group called Cowboys for Trump that staged horseback parades to spread President Donald Trump’s conservative message about gun rights, immigration controls and abortion restrictions.

This year, Griffin voted twice as a county commissioner against certifying New Mexico’s June 7 primary election, in a standoff over election integrity fueled by conspiracy theories about the security of voting equipment in the Republican-dominated county.

Two other commissioners eventually agreed to certify, but Griffin cast the loan dissenting vote while acknowledging that he had no specific basis for questioning the results of the election — attributing his decision to “my gut feeling and my own intuition.”


Griffin is among a dozen people charged in the Jan. 6 riot that had either held public office or ran for a government leadership post in the two and a half years before the attack. Of those, seven have been convicted of crimes for their participation.

Unlike Griffin, the members of Congress targeted for disqualification were neither charged nor convicted of crimes associated with the Capitol riot.

In Georgia, a federal judge allowed a 14th Amendment challenge against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green to advance, but a state administrative law judge found there wasn’t sufficient evidence to back voters’ claims that she had engaged in insurrection, and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said Greene was qualified to run.


Greene won her primary, and the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the decision last week to leave her on the ballot. The federal appeal is pending.

In North Carolina, a federal judge blocked the state elections board from formally examining whether U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn, who spoke at the rally that preceded the riot, should remain on the state’s May 17 primary ballot.

Cawthorn narrowly lost that election, and later in May a federal appeals court reversed the lower court decision. The panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the trial judge got it wrong when he ruled that an 1872 law that removed office-holding disqualifications from most ex-Confederates also exempted current members of Congress like Cawthorn. The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed as moot because Cawthorn isn’t on the November ballot.

Arizona state courts have kept U.S. Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs and a state legislator on the ballot amid efforts to disqualify them. A judge agreed in April with the lawmakers that Congress created no enforcement mechanism for the 14th Amendment, barring a criminal conviction.
Yup, apparently you can't protest anymore otherwise you're an "insurrectionist". What a world we're leaving our kids!! I don't envy them!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
2,637
1,642
113
Yup, apparently you can't protest anymore otherwise you're an "insurrectionist". What a world we're leaving our kids!! I don't envy them!
That is a dangerous precedent. It's easy to call anyone and insurrectionist. If we're going to say all people with criminal convictions should be banned from office we can have that discussion, but I don't think that's a very good idea.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
2,637
1,642
113
If she was protesting that's one thing.

But she wasn't.

So....
Of course she was protesting. And at the end of the day it's easy to call any protester a terrorist or a insurrectionist or any number of things. There are plenty of examples on the other side which could be shown and easily Twisted into the same thing. I think it's best to leave such decisions up to the voters. If they feel the person's actions should disqualify them from office then they won't vote for them. But denying people the right to run from office is a dangerous precedent.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
25,322
5,947
113
B.C.
So - you jump in out of the blue and claim i know nothing about what i'm discussing when it's PAINFULLY obvious that in fact you don't, and you think i'm the one who wants a pissing match.

It's painfully obvious you're just making shit up now. Just as you assured us all you 'voted for the leader' on line and that you got all kinds of emails from the party saying "dear member", which nobody gets. Pretending that they don't get tangled in the lines is a pretty obvious proof you don't actually have experience with it.

Grew up on the "wet" coast, and spent at least a month a year actually living on the water, caught enough salmon to sink a boat and enough cod to make half the country honorary neufoundlanders. Sorry kiddo - you're fooling no one.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
25,322
5,947
113
B.C.
Now you are really off the rails , because obviously it isn’t me getting e-mails from any party as I have never belonged to a party and have never suggested I had .
And never did I suggest they don’t get tangled in lines , even the one who swallowed my bait got tangled in the line . You read lots that isn’t there maybe a class in comprehension is in order .