Ty Cobb reacts to judge indefinitely postponing Trump classified documents trial

https://youtu.be/Of7FtU8pCdM?si=Cr95T5Z28URy6ev2

The idea that she doesn't have enough time to rule on the pending and future motions in this case is absurd. Federal judges are, quite frankly, just not that busy. Their clerks review motions and write opinions for them. They are rarely in trial and rarely on the bench for motion practice.

She's giving trump a walk if he wins the election. He's already stated that he will dismiss US Attorneys that fail to follow his directives if he becomes POTUS again. The charges in relation to him stealing classified documents and then refusing to return them to the government will simply disappear if he is re-elected.

So are you saying it’s a political prosecution?

No, I get you think Trump will be able to put himself above the law.

I think he’s doing the usual Trump thing… bloviating and then goes and plays golf.

If he actually tries to exempt himself from the law, he will get impeached and get removed from office.

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/08...l-trump-georgia-case

Georgia appeals court will review decision on Trump case DA, bringing another delay
UPDATED MAY 8, 2024

ATLANTA — The Georgia Court of Appeals has granted oral arguments after former President Donald Trump appealed a decision allowing Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to stay on the criminal case involving Trump and others.

The court's decision likely further diminishes chances that the Georgia election interference case goes to trial this year.

In March, Fulton Judge Scott McAfee allowed Willis to remain on the case — if the special prosecutor she had been in a romantic relationship with resigned. That special prosecutor, Nathan Wade, resigned.

Trump and other defendants who first raised allegations of a conflict of interest appealed McAfee's decision.

The appeals court must now hear and rule on the question within two terms, or about six months. According to the court, cases docketed in the current term must be decided by Nov. 1 and motions to reconsider must be adjudicated by Nov. 18.

McAfee is unlikely to set a trial date before that time, meaning the case almost certainly remains unresolved before the November election, though pretrial hearings are expected to continue.

"I think it effectively ends the ability of this case to get to trial before Election Day," says Atlanta attorney Jen Jordan, a former Democratic candidate for Georgia attorney general.

Jordan says she does not believe the appeals court is signaling they think McAfee's decision was wrong, but acknowledging the stakes of making sure it's right sooner rather than later.

"This is one of the most significant cases in the history of this country and definitely in this state," Jordan says. "Let's say Judge McAfee's decision not to disqualify the district attorney is wrong and you get all the way to the verdict [in the trial], and it goes up to the Court of Appeals to be reviewed and they say, 'Wait a second, there was a mistake in this very first step and you have to redo everything.' That is not in the interest of justice, due process and making sure people believe the system is working fairly."

Steve Sadow, Trump's lead counsel in Georgia, wrote in a statement, "President Trump looks forward to presenting interlocutory arguments to the Georgia Court of Appeals as to why the case should be dismissed and Fulton County DA Willis should be disqualified for her misconduct in this unjustified, unwarranted political persecution."

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So are you saying it’s a political prosecution?

No, I get you think Trump will be able to put himself above the law.

I think he’s doing the usual Trump thing… bloviating and then goes and plays golf.

If he actually tries to exempt himself from the law, he will get impeached and get removed from office.

Failure to prosecute, in Trump's case is political. Thwarting the system from the inside, the judicial, is political.

Trump has consistently, for many years, put himself above the law. So far he's succeeded. If he's elected again, the rule of law will mean nothing - a bygone memory relegated to history and the Founders.

Destruction of the rule of law, in progress, is not bloviating.

"If he actually tries to exempt himself from the law, he will get impeached and get removed from office."

That's funny Oh wait, do you mean like the last two times? Did you notice how that worked out?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So are you saying it’s a political prosecution?

No, I get you think Trump will be able to put himself above the law.

I think he’s doing the usual Trump thing… bloviating and then goes and plays golf.

If he actually tries to exempt himself from the law, he will get impeached and get removed from office.

He's trying to exempt himself from the law right now in about a half dozen different ways starting with his bullshit immunity arguments.

Do you really think that if trump has the power to get those charges withdrawn via an AG and/or a sympathetic US Attorney appointment, he won't do it? He'll let the process play out and risk a criminal conviction and jail time?

Seriously? I have a bridge I want to sell you.

So you all are admitting that a sympathetic AG can thwart the rule of law?

See HRC.

Ok.

You now are on record as buying in what the right has complained of happening in the past. Finally.

Point made.

Yes, that is why President Trump, like Nixon, cannot be given control to fire and appoint an AG until one agrees w him. This, making the decision political and not based on law as it currently is.

That is why, since Nixon, in AG confirmation hearings the independence of the nominee has be so pressed by the Senate.

President Trump tried to do this with the scheme to overturn the election. Lawyers inside the DOJ threatened mass resignations of Eastman was appointed or names interim.

The fact President Trump would use the game described above to escape prosecution does not mean the current run is politically motivated.

It is motivated in the law. President Trump likelihood to politically short circuit the process, as he attempted to do w DOJ and the election, does not change the legal grounding of this case.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So you all are admitting that a sympathetic AG can thwart the rule of law?

See HRC.

Ok.

You now are on record as buying in what the right has complained of happening in the past. Finally.

Point made.

Dodge. Deflect. Bizarre analogies. And, of course, we are now back to Hillary. When everything else fails, right? And, some vague reference to some AG. Then, without support or explanation, congratulate yourself for somehow being right about something in the past?

Right. Point made.

Holder is not prosecutorial discretion.

Comet after review of the facts and caselaw states the caselaw would not support a conviction given the facts in HRC’s case.

The mens rea was not there.

Here we have da risk allegations on not only gross negligence, but intentionally refusing and hiding records.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So you all are admitting that a sympathetic AG can thwart the rule of law?

See HRC.

Ok.

You now are on record as buying in what the right has complained of happening in the past. Finally.

Point made.

The Right complains about a lot of stuff. They wanted very much for HRC to be prosecuted. It would have been a spectacle, but that's okay - damage done, revenge satisfied, make her wrong. That not what the rule of law is about.

But conviction was not in the cards. Bad case, bad evidence, all political. Prosecuting HRC would have been weaponization of the rule of law. The damage to her would have been real, but the damage to the system - the rule of law would have been greater.

The court of public opinion is worthless in real court. But that's not the case in what Trump wants and his supporters want.

There is no real equivalence comparing what HRC allegedly did and what Trump has actually done, and what he wants to do.

Yes, you are correct that we are worried that a loyalist (to Trump) AG and FBI director, among others, can most definitely fuck up the rule of law. That is exactly what he says he will do, and that's exactly the well developed plan.

Note that Wray continued as director of the FBI under Biden admin, although appointed by Trump.

If you or anyone is interested, there is a lot written about this:

https://yalelawandpolicy.org/i...ir-attorneys-general
Yale Law & Policy Review
Too Close for Comfort: An Insider’s View of Presidents and Their Attorneys General

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages.../office/history.html
This report was written in May 1998. The independent counsel statute expired on June 30, 1999. (The independent counsel statute expired on June 30, 1999. The new Justice Department rules eliminate the complex statutory requirements of the Ethics in Government Act described here, and grant the Attorney General far more discretion in deciding whether to appoint an outside prosecutor.)

Can the public trust the executive branch of government -- the President and his appointed officials, including the Attorney General -- to investigate itself fully and fairly?

From the early days of the American republic, concerns of this kind have led Presidents to appoint special prosecutors charged with rooting out high-level official corruption. Special prosecutors have investigated such notorious cases as the 1920's Teapot Dome bribery and corruption affair and the tax scandals of the early 1950's. However it was the wide-ranging investigation of Watergate and the Nixon administration which convinced the public of the need for someone independent of the executive branch to lead an investigation of the government's upper echelons.

https://www.brookings.edu/arti...onfirmation-battles/
What Now? Confirmation Battles
Stephen Hess
December 19, 2008

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...50b6ae94b15f8e&ei=30

Donald Trump Scores Another Major Legal Victory
Story by Katherine Fung • 1d

Former President Donald Trump scored two back-to-back legal victories this week, effectively delaying two of the four criminal cases against him.

An appeals court in Georgia agreed Wednesday to consider Trump's appeal of the disqualification matter related to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and attorney Nathan Wade.

Judge Scott McAfee, who is overseeing the case in Fulton County, had agreed that Willis could remain on the prosecution in March so long as Wade, who is in a romantic relationship with Willis, stepped down from the Trump case. Trump and several of his co-defendants in the case had moved to have Willis' office disqualified from the case, citing the district attorney's relationship with Wade.

Wednesday's decision is highly likely to delay a potential trial in the RICO case. It follows Judge Aileen Cannon's Tuesday order, which indefinitely postponed Trump's trial in the classified documents case in Florida.

A day before the Georgia Court of Appeals granted the petition to reconsider the disqualification ruling, Cannon canceled the May trial date for Trump's classified documents case and did not set a new date.

Trump is currently standing criminal trial for the hush money case in Manhattan. The latest developments mean there will likely be no other trials against Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, until much closer to Election Day or even after.

They are also a major win for the former president, whose favorite legal strategy has been delaying proceedings in the cases against him.

Trump is facing 34 felony charges for falsifying business records in Manhattan, 40 felony charges related to his mishandling of confidential documents in Florida and 10 felony charges for allegedly interfering with Georgia's 2020 election in Fulton County. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

"Trump yesterday secured a win in Florida when Judge Cannon took the classified documents trial off calendar indefinitely, and today's delay in Georgia is yet another win for the former president," former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek.

The efforts to disqualify Willis played out in a dramatic hearing in February. McAfee ultimately ruled on March 15 that the district attorney could stay on.

"Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices – even repeatedly," he wrote in his ruling.

However, days later, the judge granted Trump's request to appeal his decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Other GOP-led efforts to remove Willis from the case are also underway.

Republicans in the Georgia state Senate are investigating whether the district attorney and Wade used taxpayer dollars during their relationship. On Monday, Willis said she would not testify before the panel, arguing that "I don't think they even had the authority to subpoena me, but they need to learn the law."