• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge Cannon officially dismisses Trump case

BlueTex

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
51,527
Reaction score
44,742
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
No more Cannon cover for Trump... DOJ can use anything retrieved during the execution of the warrant...

Screenshot 2022-12-12 at 9.30.31 AM.webp

www.courtlistener.com

Order Dismissing/Closing Case – #199 in Trump v. United States (S.D. Fla., 9:22-cv-81294) – CourtListener.com

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. This case is dismissed for lack of Jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. Motions terminated: 192 MOTION for Access to Unredacted Search Warrant Affidavit filed by Gray Media Group, Inc., The New York Times Company, E.W. Scripps Company, NBCUniversal Media...
www.courtlistener.com www.courtlistener.com
 
BlueTex said:
No more Cannon cover for Trump... DOJ can use anything retrieved during the execution of the warrant...

View attachment 67426768

www.courtlistener.com

Order Dismissing/Closing Case – #199 in Trump v. United States (S.D. Fla., 9:22-cv-81294) – CourtListener.com

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. This case is dismissed for lack of Jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. Motions terminated: 192 MOTION for Access to Unredacted Search Warrant Affidavit filed by Gray Media Group, Inc., The New York Times Company, E.W. Scripps Company, NBCUniversal Media...
www.courtlistener.com www.courtlistener.com
Click to expand...
Too bad nobody, to this day, knows what they've actually retrieved or whether they had any right to retrieve it.
 
Mycroft said:
Too bad nobody, to this day, knows what they've actually retrieved or whether they had any right to retrieve it.
Click to expand...

There are many people that know exactly what was retrieved and according to BOTH Judge Cannon and the 11th Circuit the Search Warrant was valid and therefore they had a right to retrieve the items as part of the initial collection:

The people that know are:
  • The Judges on the 11th Circuit Court,
  • Judge Cannon,
  • Her clerical staff,
  • Judge Dearie,
  • His assistant Special Master,
  • The entire FBI team involved with the collection,
  • The entire FBI filter team involved with on-site and post collection separation of documents,
  • The FPOTUS's legal team (excluding classified documents if they don't have a security clearance).

That's quite a few people.

WW
 
WorldWatcher said:
There are many people that know exactly what was retrieved and according to BOTH Judge Cannon and the 11th Circuit the Search Warrant was valid and therefore they had a right to retrieve the items as part of the initial collection:

The people that know are:
  • The Judges on the 11th Circuit Court,
  • Judge Cannon,
  • Her clerical staff,
  • Judge Dearie,
  • His assistant Special Master,
  • The entire FBI team involved with the collection,
  • The entire FBI filter team involved with on-site and post collection separation of documents,
  • The FPOTUS's legal team (excluding classified documents if they don't have a security clearance).

That's quite a few people.

WW
Click to expand...
ALL of them corrupt, according to @Mycroft
 
WorldWatcher said:
There are many people that know exactly what was retrieved and according to BOTH Judge Cannon and the 11th Circuit the Search Warrant was valid and therefore they had a right to retrieve the items as part of the initial collection:

The people that know are:
  • The Judges on the 11th Circuit Court,
  • Judge Cannon,
  • Her clerical staff,
  • Judge Dearie,
  • His assistant Special Master,
  • The entire FBI team involved with the collection,
  • The entire FBI filter team involved with on-site and post collection separation of documents,
  • The FPOTUS's legal team (excluding classified documents if they don't have a security clearance).

That's quite a few people.

WW
Click to expand...
None of them know exactly what was retrieved because the DOJ keeps changing the list.

At one time, they had some file folders with security markings on them...in their latest list, those folders are not there.

So...did they actually retrieve those folders...or not? Nobody knows.
 
Mycroft said:
None of them know exactly what was retrieved because the DOJ keeps changing the list.

At one time, they had some file folders with security markings on them...in their latest list, those folders are not there.

So...did they actually retrieve those folders...or not? Nobody knows.
Click to expand...
Can you link a source that shows that they have removed stuff from there list? I have not heard this claim.
 
BlueTex said:
No more Cannon cover for Trump... DOJ can use anything retrieved during the execution of the warrant...

View attachment 67426768

www.courtlistener.com

Order Dismissing/Closing Case – #199 in Trump v. United States (S.D. Fla., 9:22-cv-81294) – CourtListener.com

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. This case is dismissed for lack of Jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. Motions terminated: 192 MOTION for Access to Unredacted Search Warrant Affidavit filed by Gray Media Group, Inc., The New York Times Company, E.W. Scripps Company, NBCUniversal Media...
www.courtlistener.com www.courtlistener.com
Click to expand...
For her reputation...this is a day late and a dollar short.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Can you link a source that shows that they have removed stuff from there list? I have not heard this claim.
Click to expand...

In a recent court filing [Document Here] President Trump through his legal counsel has requested Judge Cannon to unredact and unseal the search warrant affidavit used as the predicate for the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago. Apparently, the DOJ have yet to provide President Trump with the constitutionally required predicate documents to support their search.

Additionally, the DOJ previously leaked to media about “empty folders with classified banners” as part of the evidence cache they collected. According to the filing the DOJ has since presented three different versions of their evidence collection list, with the most recent list dropping any claims of “two empty folders with classified banners.”

1670862219070.webp

read more here: https://theconservativetreehouse.co...awyers-the-affidavit-used-for-search-warrant/​
 
BlueTex said:
No more Cannon cover for Trump... DOJ can use anything retrieved during the execution of the warrant...

View attachment 67426768

www.courtlistener.com

Order Dismissing/Closing Case – #199 in Trump v. United States (S.D. Fla., 9:22-cv-81294) – CourtListener.com

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. This case is dismissed for lack of Jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. Motions terminated: 192 MOTION for Access to Unredacted Search Warrant Affidavit filed by Gray Media Group, Inc., The New York Times Company, E.W. Scripps Company, NBCUniversal Media...
www.courtlistener.com www.courtlistener.com
Click to expand...
Trump: Et tu, Cannon?

Everyone is jumping aboard the "Dump Donny Train".
 
Mycroft said:
​
In a recent court filing [Document Here] President Trump through his legal counsel has requested Judge Cannon to unredact and unseal the search warrant affidavit used as the predicate for the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago. Apparently, the DOJ have yet to provide President Trump with the constitutionally required predicate documents to support their search.​
​
Additionally, the DOJ previously leaked to media about “empty folders with classified banners” as part of the evidence cache they collected. According to the filing the DOJ has since presented three different versions of their evidence collection list, with the most recent list dropping any claims of “two empty folders with classified banners.”​
​
​
Click to expand...
I guess it will just remain one of life's mysteries for you to obsess about.
 
tacomancer said:
I guess it will just remain one of life's mysteries for you to obsess about.
Click to expand...
Oh. Is THAT how you characterize inconsistencies from the Department of Justice?

"one of life's mysteries"?
 
Mycroft said:
None of them know exactly what was retrieved because the DOJ keeps changing the list.

At one time, they had some file folders with security markings on them...in their latest list, those folders are not there.

So...did they actually retrieve those folders...or not? Nobody knows.
Click to expand...
The DoJ can now be trusted. The ones that don't trust them, no surprise, are the criminal element.
 
Mycroft said:
​
In a recent court filing [Document Here] President Trump through his legal counsel has requested Judge Cannon to unredact and unseal the search warrant affidavit used as the predicate for the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago. Apparently, the DOJ have yet to provide President Trump with the constitutionally required predicate documents to support their search.​
​
Additionally, the DOJ previously leaked to media about “empty folders with classified banners” as part of the evidence cache they collected. According to the filing the DOJ has since presented three different versions of their evidence collection list, with the most recent list dropping any claims of “two empty folders with classified banners.”​
​
​
Click to expand...
Hmm, I was not aware of that. I think a distinction needs to be made. This is just a claim by Trump's lawyers. Not exactly a trustworthy source. But even taking it at face value, what do you think is nefarious about this? Couldn't the folders have been simply listed differently and are part of the 53 new documents? Or maybe they found the info belonging to the folders and that changed how they were labelled? What's the scandal here exactly?
 
BlueTex said:
On the bright side, Trump's defense can present this "finding" during his upcoming trial...
Click to expand...
Oh. You assume there's going to be a trial.

Okay.
 
Mycroft said:
None of them know exactly what was retrieved because the DOJ keeps changing the list.

At one time, they had some file folders with security markings on them...in their latest list, those folders are not there.

So...did they actually retrieve those folders...or not? Nobody knows.
Click to expand...
Lol...
 
NuffSaid said:
Jeez, even the hack judge Trump appointed is jumping ship.
Click to expand...
She had no choice. She was professionally excoriated by the very conservative 4th circuit court of appeals.

Just as everyone else that lent their professional expertise to Trump's cause, she comes out the other side reputationally ruined. When will these people realize that Trump is a very bad dude. You associate with bad people and it usually does not end well. To most of America Cannon appears to be a bad judge that is readily corruptible.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Hmm, I was not aware of that. I think a distinction needs to be made. This is just a claim by Trump's lawyers. Not exactly a trustworthy source. But even taking it at face value, what do you think is nefarious about this? Couldn't the folders have been simply listed differently and are part of the 53 new documents? Or maybe they found the info belonging to the folders and that changed how they were labelled? What's the scandal here exactly?
Click to expand...
shrug...

I find Trump's lawyers to be more trustworthy than the DOJ, but that doesn't matter.

What matters is that the lawyers filed a motion and, within that motion, they make a claim that there have been three lists and each one is changed from the others. This issue will have to be resolved by the court, but the fact remains that the DOJ STILL hasn't submitted a final list and that nobody knows exactly what the DOJ has in their possession.

This is what I stated in that previous post that prompted you to ask for a link. I didn't say there was a scandal.

Now...you are free to present your speculations about this. I'll wait and see what happens in the court.
 
BlueTex said:
On the bright side, Trump's defense can present this "finding" during his upcoming trial...
Click to expand...
LOL Just around he corner, huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom