Lawyers with appropriate clearances. It’s how they haggle about what can be declassified for the jury. Otherwise you’d screw the defendant because you’d be entirely relying on the government’s word about the gravity of what remains redacted.
And yes, on rare occasions prosecutions have fallen apart because the stuff was considered too sensitive to share.
And those lawyers face losing their clearances and even prosecution if they leak.
The eyebrows are trying SOOOOOOOOOOOOO hard to move, but they just can’t quite do it…
Also, that second post in the feed hahahahaha
Meh…put it on his desk and he’d sign it in his own blood and hand you a list of nominees with the other hand. It’s just not something you say you support as a 1st term POTUS who is running again unless you’re 100% sure you’ve got it coming.
He warned them
I think having been popular in high school is a harbinger you’re going to be a terrible human being later in life.
One would think that for a Constitutional Sheriff that would be a few steps down…no authority at all, he won’t get to decide what is constitutional or not.
Switching nerdery here, but come to the dark side. We have cookies.
I assume he’s including his former prosecutor Pomerantz among the defendants because that is the mechanism to block him responding to a congressional subpoena.
Yes, I am reading it now and Pomerantz is included.
Possibly, but the same people preventing us from tackling the gun side of gun violence (Republicans) are preventing us from tackling that in a meaningful way too.
Also, we have plenty of examples of countries that have dysfunctional mental health systems, but few guns and little to no mass shooters, but few (if really any) countries with good mental health systems and lots of gun, but with little to no mass shootings.
Based on the available evidence, it’d be crazy for us to not go with basically proven method of restricting and reducing guns to reduce mass shootings.
I’m struggling to understand why lawyers and in particular Trump’s lawyers would be entitled to decide what national defense secrets could be declassified. Isn’t that up to the Biden administration and the relevant agencies? Maybe the docs have already been declassified and it will now be just haggling over what can be presented to a jury.
Anyway, I haven’t followed this kind of trial closely and I know people have gone to prison for withholding classified docs, so there must be a procedure that works.
Sounds like a Kurt Vonnegut story.
American Playhouse did a film of it directed by Jonathan Demme and starring Christopher Walken and Susan Sarandon.
This is what the commission recommended.
I don’t think he has said anything about that.
I just took the time to read quite a bit of Kacsmaryk’s decision, and it made me think of some of the insane stuff my deceased brother-in-law used to write (he died of Covid-no vaccine, no mask) after doing his extensive “research” on his Google machine. This would be considered poor for a 9th grade composition paper.
I’ve mentioned a few times the trans Marine Iraq vet I know in Wisconsin. I’ve had to call the Madison VA hospital twice to get them to send cops to check on her because she was… close. At least one of those times, I’m reasonably sure she was going to do it.
She has hit a turning point, I think… she’s been doing a lot better, gotten involved with her local church—and as much as I’m an unabashed atheist, churches can provide important support networks, which is why I tell people ‘if it works for you, great’—and has removed herself from activities that were actively toxic. But honestly, I think that real turning point wasn’t a ‘she seems happy’ moment. Just the opposite. Everyone who knows her knew she wasn’t happy. It was just after a rash of vet suicides made the news ,and she called me up sobbing and saying ‘I don’t want to be one of these people that blows their brains out in the VA parking lot’.
She’s in a much better headspace now… but she still has bad days. Everyone does. The thing is, when she starts to get low, she knows to reach out… and everyone else knows not to let her isolate herself too much. Keep in touch, be supportive, tell her that no, she’s not a worthless piece of shit… and hope it’s enough, but understand that one of these days… it might not be.
The turning points come when people face the abyss, and choose connection. When they just spackle over everything and everyone around them thinks ‘oh, but they seem so happy’… that’s just closing the release valve on the boiler. Eventually… it will explode.
Because they have to do that. You can’t prosecute someone for doing hinky things with national defense information without turning over the evidence, which includes the national defense information.
I had always assumed that they would declassify a selection of the less volatile docs, and prosecute for those. I mean, getting a conviction on a dozen instances is as good as 300 instances; can always bring up the remaining 300 at sentencing. But if the gang of eight now has access to all 300, they have to assume some of those docs are going to leak anyways. Not that they could have considered their secrecy to be particularly pristine after they’d been down at mar al stinko for 18 months post-presidency.
Yep, no president has walked this earth who wouldn’t jump at the chance to shape the nation for the next 30 years with four supreme court appointments.
It probably shouldn’t be the case that a district court judge can issue a nationwide injunction. (Didn’t Gorsuch recently raise this very point?) It’s often worked to Dems’ favor that a district judge could do this, but it’s a pretty asymmetric situation when a forum-shopping plaintiff can shut down something nationwide at this level.
I’m not sure where this power is established – via legislation? within the judiciary?
So, i’m safe then. Thanks! 
True enough…and I’m not sure about that ambiguous reference to “profound disagreement”. Does it mean that they all/mostly profoundly disagreed with the idea or that some liked it and others didn’t, creating profound disagreement within the commission?