Donnie Dumptruck says Mar-A-Lago's been searched by the FBI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A gentle suggestion - if you do not regularly practice in the federal district courts, it may not be constructive for you to opine on what will, could or should happen with respect to procedural issues like issuance of summons or responses. There are a number of posts here that present themselves as knowledgeable but are not.

Many of us know how it normally works. However, what happens when a plaintiff so completely ignores the normal rules by skipping the whole complaint part is anyone's guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many records did he burn to try and coverup the fact that he stole them I wonder….

Doubt it, that would be like burning money.

Well, not if he passed the information along to the most useful recipient first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many records did he burn to try and coverup the fact that he stole them I wonder….

Maybe they should get a warrant to search Mar-A-Lardo’s septic system.

FIFY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many records did he burn to try and coverup the fact that he stole them I wonder….

Maybe they should get a warrant to search Mar-A-Lago’s septic system.

Perhaps. The evidence that he routinely destroyed documents by flushing them down the toilet might have factored into the judge’s decision to grant the initial warrant at the very least.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The rest of that story is that Biden was in this from the beginning and didn’t hear about it ‘when we did, through the media’. His administration waived Trump’s executive privilege. That will probably go to the SC. Given the history of the FBI targeting, I know how that will probably go

Source for these claims?

Idiot PP took the bait. Trumpy “journalist” John Solomon was given the OK to release the letter to get his base all riled up about Biden. But what the letter actually does reveal is hideously bad for Trump.

There is no bait to take. What I said was true. Garland said it was all him and the Biden administration claimed they had nothing to do with it.

You don’t understand what you read. Biden did not direct the FBI to do anything. They were asking a federal agency (NARA) to give them documents— NARA held off for a long time to give TFG time, eventually NARA said your claims of privilege are not yours, they are the actual president’s and he says to go FY, so we’re going to cooperate with the FBI. In a nutshell.

I understand exactly what happened. Thank you for the ‘explanation’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The rest of that story is that Biden was in this from the beginning and didn’t hear about it ‘when we did, through the media’. His administration waived Trump’s executive privilege. That will probably go to the SC. Given the history of the FBI targeting, I know how that will probably go

Source for these claims?

Idiot PP took the bait. Trumpy “journalist” John Solomon was given the OK to release the letter to get his base all riled up about Biden. But what the letter actually does reveal is hideously bad for Trump.

There is no bait to take. What I said was true. Garland said it was all him and the Biden administration claimed they had nothing to do with it.

Garland said no such thing. You are a liar.

“ First, I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter. ”. Source. Garland’s speech

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A gentle suggestion - if you do not regularly practice in the federal district courts, it may not be constructive for you to opine on what will, could or should happen with respect to procedural issues like issuance of summons or responses. There are a number of posts here that present themselves as knowledgeable but are not.

If you have no appreciation of the partisan (outcome determinative) leanings of many federal judges then you don’t spend much time in federal courthouses, including the Supreme Court. The d Solon of the wheel for trial judge and appellate panel will tell an experienced practitioner much about the fate of their case. The fingers are always on the scale to the point of linking a sample pro hac motion (so that two lawyers with experience as AUSAs can try to comply with the local rules. Ordinarily the motion is denied sua sponte for failure to comply with the specified local rule). The lawyer seeking admission is expected to have read and comply with the court’s rules, snd most courts have little patience with laziness and/or incompetence.

BTW there isn’t much “procedural” in nature when it comes to a Summons. It’s a standard form. The plaintiff prepares the proposed summons(es), together with a Civil Cover Sheet, for filing with the Complaint. The Clerk then issues the summons by affixing a signature and seal of the court, which is then returned to counsel by email attachment for service. This is all done in accordance with Rule 4 and any applicable court rule. It all can be done electronically through CM/ECF. “Response” to a Summons. Okay, umm sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A gentle suggestion - if you do not regularly practice in the federal district courts, it may not be constructive for you to opine on what will, could or should happen with respect to procedural issues like issuance of summons or responses. There are a number of posts here that present themselves as knowledgeable but are not.

If you have no appreciation of the partisan (outcome determinative) leanings of many federal judges then you don’t spend much time in federal courthouses, including the Supreme Court. The d Solon of the wheel for trial judge and appellate panel will tell an experienced practitioner much about the fate of their case. The fingers are always on the scale to the point of linking a sample pro hac motion (so that two lawyers with experience as AUSAs can try to comply with the local rules. Ordinarily the motion is denied sua sponte for failure to comply with the specified local rule). The lawyer seeking admission is expected to have read and comply with the court’s rules, snd most courts have little patience with laziness and/or incompetence.

BTW there isn’t much “procedural” in nature when it comes to a Summons. It’s a standard form. The plaintiff prepares the proposed summons(es), together with a Civil Cover Sheet, for filing with the Complaint. The Clerk then issues the summons by affixing a signature and seal of the court, which is then returned to counsel by email attachment for service. This is all done in accordance with Rule 4 and any applicable court rule. It all can be done electronically through CM/ECF. “Response” to a Summons. Okay, umm sure.

I don’t think you properly read the post to which you are responding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The rest of that story is that Biden was in this from the beginning and didn’t hear about it ‘when we did, through the media’. His administration waived Trump’s executive privilege. That will probably go to the SC. Given the history of the FBI targeting, I know how that will probably go

Source for these claims?

Idiot PP took the bait. Trumpy “journalist” John Solomon was given the OK to release the letter to get his base all riled up about Biden. But what the letter actually does reveal is hideously bad for Trump.

There is no bait to take. What I said was true. Garland said it was all him and the Biden administration claimed they had nothing to do with it.

Garland said no such thing. You are a liar.

“ First, I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter. ”. Source. Garland’s speech

So? What part of the NARA letter indicates he didn't approve the search warrant, or that Biden knew about the search warrant? The NARA letter doesn't discuss the search or the search warrant. It also shows that Biden delegated all of the executive privilege issues to NARA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That guy does a good job explaining their tortured logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The rest of that story is that Biden was in this from the beginning and didn’t hear about it ‘when we did, through the media’. His administration waived Trump’s executive privilege. That will probably go to the SC. Given the history of the FBI targeting, I know how that will probably go

Source for these claims?

Idiot PP took the bait. Trumpy “journalist” John Solomon was given the OK to release the letter to get his base all riled up about Biden. But what the letter actually does reveal is hideously bad for Trump.

There is no bait to take. What I said was true. Garland said it was all him and the Biden administration claimed they had nothing to do with it.

You don’t understand what you read. Biden did not direct the FBI to do anything. They were asking a federal agency (NARA) to give them documents— NARA held off for a long time to give TFG time, eventually NARA said your claims of privilege are not yours, they are the actual president’s and he says to go FY, so we’re going to cooperate with the FBI. In a nutshell.

I understand exactly what happened. Thank you for the ‘explanation’

You are quite welcome. Glad I could clear it up for you.

[Anonymous]

Well this is embarrassing:

PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 1 Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief. To facilitate appropriate resolution, on or before August 26, 2022, Plaintiff shall file a supplement to the Motion further elaborating on the following: (1) the asserted basis for the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction, whether legal, equitable/anomalous, or both; (2) the framework applicable to the exercise of such jurisdiction; (3) the precise relief sought, including any request for injunctive relief pending resolution of the Motion; (4) the effect, if any, of the proceeding before Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart; and (5) the status of Plaintiff's efforts to perfect service on Defendant. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 8/23/2022. (AMC) (Entered: 08/23/2022)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64911367/trump-v-united-states/

Seems like some of these issues would have been addressed if they had filed a complaint. Judge is going soft on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well this is embarrassing:

PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 1 Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief. To facilitate appropriate resolution, on or before August 26, 2022, Plaintiff shall file a supplement to the Motion further elaborating on the following: (1) the asserted basis for the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction, whether legal, equitable/anomalous, or both; (2) the framework applicable to the exercise of such jurisdiction; (3) the precise relief sought, including any request for injunctive relief pending resolution of the Motion; (4) the effect, if any, of the proceeding before Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart; and (5) the status of Plaintiff's efforts to perfect service on Defendant. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 8/23/2022. (AMC) (Entered: 08/23/2022)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64911367/trump-v-united-states/

Seems like some of these issues would have been addressed if they had filed a complaint. Judge is going soft on them.

This is the judge giving Trump's lawyers hints on how to pursue the case. Notice she mentions "injunctive relief pending resolution," which Trump's brief very notably did not ask for. And she raises anomalous jurisdiction. Bad sign that this judge is not on the up and up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this is embarrassing:

PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court is in receipt of 1 Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief. To facilitate appropriate resolution, on or before August 26, 2022, Plaintiff shall file a supplement to the Motion further elaborating on the following: (1) the asserted basis for the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction, whether legal, equitable/anomalous, or both; (2) the framework applicable to the exercise of such jurisdiction; (3) the precise relief sought, including any request for injunctive relief pending resolution of the Motion; (4) the effect, if any, of the proceeding before Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart; and (5) the status of Plaintiff's efforts to perfect service on Defendant. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 8/23/2022. (AMC) (Entered: 08/23/2022)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64911367/trump-v-united-states/

Seems like some of these issues would have been addressed if they had filed a complaint. Judge is going soft on them.

This is the judge giving Trump's lawyers hints on how to pursue the case. Notice she mentions "injunctive relief pending resolution," which Trump's brief very notably did not ask for. And she raises anomalous jurisdiction. Bad sign that this judge is not on the up and up.

+1. There is no effect on the “proceeding” before Reinhart because the warrant was executed and inventory filed. The only extant issue is whether to unseal the affidavit, and Trump did not bother to enter an appearance and take a position. This could present a waiver/estoppel type issue. Strongly suspect Dream Team 45 filed in WPB with the expectation of getting this judge.