reflechissez
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 25,199
- Reaction score
- 18,768
- Location
- Wakanda
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Like what?
Like what?I will agree when we have an indictment. The DOJ allegedly found what they were looking for. If this does not rise to the level of criminality in their minds then this was a publicity stunt. Same result could have been found with a less dramatic move.
Ummm...I've got some bad news for you. You're going to learn that information, so you might want to start working on your next goal post right now.
He's not going to let us know.You’ll just say he’s lying too if he does tell you.
You keep repeating this. Can you give some details as to why you think this is a problem? Are trump's people even trying to make this "argument?"He is. Why on earth would you take your warrant application to a judge who recused himself from another case involving the same person just six weeks prior. That was sloppy. And then resist releasing the justification for that application when it could eliminate all question of judicial bias. That’s even sloppier.
Really? Does Clinesmith ring a bell?Fallacy. Free and easy fallacy.
Yet. When Trump is ultimately charged with his crimes they will. At that point, they'll have all the evidence they need, and they will no longer need to hide the name of the sources.Ummm...
From what I've heard, that judge isn't going to require the affidavit to be fully released. So no, nobody is going to "learn that information".
That's an opinion piece, not a news piece and not an editorial. FoxNews does present different perspectives, unlike CNN and MSNBC.Uh-oh--Fox "News" is finally admitting that the search was justified?
Quick, righties--start calling Fox "liberal media"!
He is. Why on earth would you take your warrant application to a judge who recused himself from another case involving the same person just six weeks prior. That was sloppy. And then resist releasing the justification for that application when it could eliminate all question of judicial bias. That’s even sloppier.
And the Judge should have declined it so that it could be reassigned. Failing that, the DOJ should have requested recusal.The DOJ didn't take a warrant application to a Judge.
The case was assigned to the Judge based on rotation.
From the Internal Operating Procedures for the Southern District of Florida (which is the jurisdiction where judge presides.)
View attachment 67408224
Local Rules and Procedures | Southern District of Florida | United States District Court
www.flsd.uscourts.gov
WW
Do you know the basis for his recusal?And the Judge should have declined it so that it could be reassigned. Failing that, the DOJ should have requested recusal.
Ummm...
From what I've heard, that judge isn't going to require the affidavit to be fully released. So no, nobody is going to "learn that information".
And the Judge should have declined it so that it could be reassigned. Failing that, the DOJ should have requested recusal.
He cited 28 U.S.C. § 455 so the reason is that he could not be impartial.Do you know the basis for his recusal?
On what grounds, counselor?
On 28 U.S.C. § 455 - which he cited to recuse himself from another Trump case just six weeks prior to signing this warrant. If he couldn’t be impartial in that case then why is he signing a warrant involving the same person?On what grounds, counselor?
What this article misses or ignores is that a former President is not in the same situation as the average American, and that there are legitimate concerns about this situation being treated differently by the FBI and DOJ than prior situations involving issues of classified documents. It also ignores the obvious extant motives that could play into a raid on the home of a former President, meaning just having an investigation "running its course" over the mid-term elections has a political effect and therefore, the American people have a strong interest in knowing whether this raid was for political purposes or not. Moreover, the article ignores the history of politically motivated hit jobs against Donald Trump, the Russia hoax, and the FBI team lying to a federal judge to get warrants during the Russia Hoax investigation and also the FBI relying on concocted evidence in order to justify their actions.The trumpkin rubes are not going to like this:
The Trump Mar-a-Lago search was justified
It's time to get to the truth about the FBI search of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home. This is not tyranny or political persecution.www.foxnews.com
Ever since news broke two weeks ago that the FBI had executed a search warrant on former President Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago, the political world has been aflame with hyperbole, accusations, innuendo, and hysteria.
Every legal pundit and pundits pretending to know something about the law have emerged to try and explain what is really happening here. And the former president and his allies, as is their custom, have sought to flood the zone with political justifications and haphazard legal explanations to deflect from his conduct.
The truth needs to be set forth plainly and simply, and so let’s get down to brass tacks here. What happened on August 8, 2022, was not tyranny. It was not political persecution. It was not a minor dust up over bureaucratic processes blown out of proportion. It was the criminal justice system operating just like it does with any other private citizen on any other given day ending in a "y."
On 28 U.S.C. § 455 - which he cited to recuse himself from another Trump case just six weeks prior to signing this warrant. If he couldn’t be impartial in that case then why is he signing a warrant involving the same person?
Definitely not. The only information DOJ will suggest be revealed will be that which can be skewed against DJT.Ummm...
From what I've heard, that judge isn't going to require the affidavit to be fully released. So no, nobody is going to "learn that information".
OK.......which article of the many cited?He cited 28 U.S.C. § 455 so the reason is that he could not be impartial.
The reason is there:I read his recusal for the Clinton/Trump case. He didn't specify any reason. What would be the reason he was not impartial in this case? And be specific. He was next in line for this case. Fact.
I would think that when the judge made statements that Donald Trump did not have the moral authority to kiss Representative Lewis' feet, that might call his impartiality into question, and arguably that shows a personal bias.I read his recusal for the Clinton/Trump case. He didn't specify any reason. What would be the reason he was not impartial in this case? And be specific. He was next in line for this case. Fact.
The reason is there:
“…pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455”
Which is a statute requiring recusal for inability to be impartial. It’s also a fact that this judge could and should have recused himself from this case too.
The same reason he recused himself from another Trump case - bias.Once again, list the specific reason he would need to recuse himself from this case. I'll wait.
OK.......which article of the many cited?
So, the section on personal bias seems to apply. As does the general section about "impartiality reasonably called into question.""He publicly tweeted personal criticism about President Trump’s character in 2017 before he became a magistrate judge in 2018. Magistrate Judge Reinhart just recused from a civil lawsuit from President Trump against Hillary Clinton six weeks ago,” said Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project. “How did his bias go away in the last six weeks?”
In one post, the judge said he “generally ignored” Mr. Trump’s tweets, but he responded to the former president’s criticism of the civil rights icon and late Georgia Congressman John Lewis.
“Donald Trump doesn’t have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis’s feet,” Judge Reinhart wrote on his Facebook page, according to Daily Wire. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/12/magistrate-full-authority-search-warrant-trump-mar/
Personal bias.Once again, list the specific reason he would need to recuse himself from this case. I'll wait.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?