[late]

I am surprised no one has brought this up.

"As a preliminary matter, Dearie made clear that this was a civil case in which Trump had the burden to show he had some claim to get back documents seized under a properly served search warrant. That was already an improvement over Cannon, who seemed never to consider that vital prerequisite to any further ruling.

It did not take much longer for Dearie to get to the nub of the matter: Because there is apparent evidence in the affidavit for the Mar-a-Lago search warrant that some of the documents are classified, Trump needs to officially challenge that, otherwise, Dearie said, “As far as I’m concerned, that’s the end of it.”

Dearie suggested that if Trump had nothing to offer, he might not even have to look at the documents.

All in all, this was an unmitigated disaster for Trump — and an embarrassment for Cannon, whose ruling looks preposterous compared with a competent judge’s assessment.

But most of all, it was a strong day for the rule of law. And that, at a time the MAGA movement is seeking to unravel our democracy, is worth savoring."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... rainwreck/

The judge has experience in security issues, and like most judges, little tolerance for BS.

[Puffer Fish]

Interestingly these opinion articles like the one you are showing don't really give us any of the details we need to decide which side is right and which side is wrong.

It just gives us a pre-formed opinion about the facts, of which it does not tell us the details.

[BlutoSays]

There is no room for facts, reason and logic here. Please avoid going against the grain and begin peddling the company line.

[late]

Interestingly these opinion articles like the one you are showing don't really give us any of the details we need to decide which side is right and which side is wrong.

It just gives us a pre-formed opinion about the facts, of which it does not tell us the details.

A responsible adult that plans on discussing things here should be paying attention to the news.

Getting a Master was Trump doing his usual delay tactic. This is a civil case, meaning Trump has the burden of proof. In a criminal case, the prosecutor has the burden of proof. But the Trump guys weren't actually doing that, or anything. So the judge told his lawyers to do something or this is over immediately.

There's a little more, but if your fingers ain't broke, try Google, or a newspaper, or a news show or...

[BlutoSays]

A responsible adult that plans on discussing things here should be paying attention to the news.

Getting a Master was Trump doing his usual delay tactic. This is a civil case, meaning Trump has the burden of proof. In a criminal case, the prosecutor has the burden of proof. But the Trump guys weren't actually doing that, or anything. So the judge told his lawyers to do something or this is over immediately.

There's a little more, but if your fingers ain't broke, try Google, or a newspaper, or a news show or...

You have to know the language of leftists...

A few to begin with...

1) You aren't a "responsible adult" unless you see things their way.

2) Take their brand of (political) science as settled science. It avoids further discussion, thought and argument and avoids inconvenient facts. See #1

3) Anything a democrat wants IS a human right by definition.

4) Anything a democrat doesn't want shall be banned without discussion. Otherwise, how dare you act against "your own interests".

5) We're all "in this together". If we aren't, who are you to identify as "an individual". They know what's best for you.

6) Just shut up and pay your taxes for the progressives needs, desires and wants. It's what's best for you. Don't you know this?

7) Can't we just have an "honest discussion"? That means "can't you just agree with me".


I have more, but you get the point on the endless stream of situational ethics from leftists the world over.

[Steve_American]

You have to know the language of leftists...

A few to begin with...

1) You aren't a "responsible adult" unless you see things their way.

2) Take their brand of (political) science as settled science. It avoids further discussion, thought and argument and avoids inconvenient facts. See #1

3) Anything a democrat wants IS a human right by definition.

4) Anything a democrat doesn't want shall be banned without discussion. Otherwise, how dare you act against "your own interests".

5) We're all "in this together". If we aren't, who are you to identify as "an individual". They know what's best for you.

6) Just shut up and pay your taxes for the progressives needs, desires and wants. It's what's best for you. Don't you know this?

7) Can't we just have an "honest discussion"? That means "can't you just agree with me".


I have more, but you get the point on the endless stream of situational ethics from leftists the world over.

ROFLMAO.

The poster here who post 95% memes is asking for discussion and 'facts'.

AFAIK, the post said what the judge said. The facts that matter are what the judge says.
This is how court rooms work. When it is over only what the judge said matters.
Then, it is appealed. So, new judges get their say. Etc.

.

[late]

ROFLMAO.

The poster here who post 95% memes is asking for discussion and 'facts'.

AFAIK, the post said what the judge said. The facts that matter are what the judge says.
This is how court rooms work. When it is over only what the judge said matters.
Then, it is appealed. So, new judges get their say. Etc.

On top of that, the appeals court yesterday went up Trumps butt with a Roto-Rooter..

His moves in the documents case got trashed by the Master a couple days ago, and the appeal left him in a worse position than he was before the appeal.

[late]

situational ethics from leftists

You do situational ethics every damn day.

You really ought to look up what that means.

[pugsville]

You have to know the language of leftists...

A few to begin with...

1) You aren't a "responsible adult" unless you see things their way.

2) Take their brand of (political) science as settled science. It avoids further discussion, thought and argument and avoids inconvenient facts. See #1

3) Anything a democrat wants IS a human right by definition.

4) Anything a democrat doesn't want shall be banned without discussion. Otherwise, how dare you act against "your own interests".

5) We're all "in this together". If we aren't, who are you to identify as "an individual". They know what's best for you.

6) Just shut up and pay your taxes for the progressives needs, desires and wants. It's what's best for you. Don't you know this?

7) Can't we just have an "honest discussion"? That means "can't you just agree with me".


I have more, but you get the point on the endless stream of situational ethics from leftists the world over.

Pot kettle black. Have you ANY self awareness at all,