January 6 Coup Attempt

[Bootstrap]

I am not a lawyer, but I listen to lawyers about 4-6 hours a week discuss all this stuff. Meygn Kelly often will have two lawyers that are from the two different camps and they discuss stuff and present each side. It can be quite interesting and illuminating. I also listen to Alan Dershowitz "DerShow." I also listen to Viva Frei(Canadian Lawyer) and Robert Barnes(US Civil Rights Lawyer). I download their podcasts and listen while I work.

Sounds pretty one-sided.

I certainly don't have 4-6 hours a week to listen to people on this subject, but I don't think the things you are saying about discovery are true. And if you have 4-6 hours a week to listen to lawyers, perhaps it would be helpful to listen to some other sources?

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-libra ... n-fairness

Discovery is the means by which one party in a legal action seeks to learn as much as possible about the opposing party's case in order to devise an appropriate trial strategy.

Trump's team has every right to any evidence that will be used in court against him. They also have the right to this:

The discovery right is limited to evidence in the Government's possession that is both favorable to the defense and material to the issue of guilt or innocence.

So if there's anything that would show that Trump is innocent of the specific charges against him, the DOJ does need to produce it if they are aware of it.

They do not have the right to a sprawling, unlimited demand for whatever they can think of, and that would almost certainly require so much time that there could not be a trial. Which is, after all, their goal.

[Ken]

I am not a lawyer, but I listen to lawyers about 4-6 hours a week discuss all this stuff. Meygn Kelly often will have two lawyers that are from the two different camps and they discuss stuff and present each side. It can be quite interesting and illuminating. I also listen to Alan Dershowitz "DerShow." I also listen to Viva Frei(Canadian Lawyer) and Robert Barnes(US Civil Rights Lawyer). I download their podcasts and listen while I work.

Sounds pretty one-sided.

I certainly don't have 4-6 hours a week to listen to people on this subject, but I don't think the things you are saying about discovery are true. And if you have 4-6 hours a week to listen to lawyers, perhaps it would be helpful to listen to some other sources?

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-libra ... n-fairness

Discovery is the means by which one party in a legal action seeks to learn as much as possible about the opposing party's case in order to devise an appropriate trial strategy.

Trump's team has every right to any evidence that will be used in court against him. They also have the right to this:

The discovery right is limited to evidence in the Government's possession that is both favorable to the defense and material to the issue of guilt or innocence.

So if there's anything that would show that Trump is innocent of the specific charges against him, the DOJ does need to produce it if they are aware of it.

They do not have the right to a sprawling, unlimited demand for whatever they can think of, and that would almost certainly require so much time that there could not be a trial. Which is, after all, their goal.

The Trump Subpoena was a demand for information whatsoever that the government has related to 1/6 including information collected on any of the other 561 defendants who have been charged with crimes related to that day as well potential evidence on thousands of other people who might have been investigated and not charged. Also the identities of any confidential informants and/or government agents who might have been involved in any part of any investigation related to any of those 561+ defendants.

They are simply not entitled to any or all of that information and the government is right not to give it to them. None of it is pertinent to Trump's case if it isn't being used in the prosecution against him or isn't exculpatory. And much of it is confidential information related to other people which the government is not permitted to make public anyway. If the government or FBI is investigating YOU, then other members of the public are not entitled to request and see the information that they collect. And for very obvious reasons the FBI is actually forbidden from even commenting on such an ongoing investigation or whether one even exists.

[Bootstrap]

The Trump Subpoena was a demand for information whatsoever that the government has related to 1/6 including information collected on any of the other 561 defendants who have been charged with crimes related to that day as well potential evidence on thousands of other people who might have been investigated and not charged. Also the identities of any confidential informants and/or government agents who might have been involved in any part of any investigation related to any of those 561+ defendants.

The ruling is here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ena-motion

There are three basic tests:

1. Is it relevant to the specific charges in the trial?
2. Would it be admissible in court for this specific trial?
3. Did they identify the specific evidence that they need?

The judge said that Trump's team did not make a request that passes those three tests. The judge also said that there's no evidence that some of the things they asked for exist at all.

And this phrase seems relevant:

... courts will not approve a subpoena for documents based upon requests for disclosure from broad categories of documents.

As far as I can see, Trump's team is requesting broad categories of documents from agencies that are not directly involved in the trial. Here's one relevant quote from the document, but it's only 7 pages, and it is worth reading the whole thing if you want to know what it says.

A pre-trial Rule 17(c) subpoena “must clear three hurdles: (1) relevancy; (2) admissibility; [and] (3) specificity.” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 700. “The first prong of this test—relevance—requires the Court to assess whether the documents sought have ‘any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.’” United States v. Libby, 432 F. Supp. 2d 26, 31 (D.D.C. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401). “If the documents are deemed relevant, the Court must then determine whether they would be admissible. This inquiry is largely governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401–415, 801–807). Finally, the request must specify the records sought: While it may sometimes be impossible to “describe fully” the materials being sought, “courts will not approve a subpoena for documents based upon requests for disclosure from broad categories of documents.” Id. (citing Nixon, 418 U.S. at 700; United States v. North, 708 F. Supp. 402, 404 (D.D.C. 1989)). “The burden of showing these standards” are met falls “on the party requesting the information.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 386 (2004) (citing Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699).

[Robert]

The subpoena request that they made falls into neither category. That is why it was correctly rejected.

Have you read the subpoena and do you have a law degree?

[Robert]

There are three basic tests:
Is it relevant to the specific charges in the trial?
Would it be admissible in court for this specific trial?
Did they identify the specific evidence that they need?
The judge said that Trump's team did not make a request that passes those three tests. The judge also said that there's no evidence that some of the things they asked for exist at all.

Neither did the subpoena for the Mar-a-lago search according to multiple lawyers, Alan Dershowitz being one of them. Why was it not thrown out? Because of politics.

[Ken]

There are three basic tests:
Is it relevant to the specific charges in the trial?
Would it be admissible in court for this specific trial?
Did they identify the specific evidence that they need?
The judge said that Trump's team did not make a request that passes those three tests. The judge also said that there's no evidence that some of the things they asked for exist at all.

Neither did the subpoena for the Mar-a-lago search according to multiple lawyers, Alan Dershowitz being one of them. Why was it not thrown out? Because of politics.

Investigative subpoenas have different standards and criteria than defense motions for discovery.

[Bootstrap]

There are three basic tests:
Is it relevant to the specific charges in the trial?
Would it be admissible in court for this specific trial?
Did they identify the specific evidence that they need?
The judge said that Trump's team did not make a request that passes those three tests. The judge also said that there's no evidence that some of the things they asked for exist at all.

Neither did the subpoena for the Mar-a-lago search according to multiple lawyers, Alan Dershowitz being one of them. Why was it not thrown out? Because of politics.

Investigative subpoenas have different standards and criteria than defense motions for discovery.

Beyond that, you might want to look up the basic facts behind the Mar-a-lago subpoena - what documents they were looking for, how they knew they were in Trump's possession, etc. You can find lawyers who will tell you any story you want.

[Robert]

Beyond that, you might want to look up the basic facts behind the Mar-a-lago subpoena - what documents they were looking for, how they knew they were in Trump's possession, etc. You can find lawyers who will tell you any story you want.

So a 50+ year tenured law professor who has written 52 books and has argued cases in front of the Supreme Court, a registered Democrat, and a person who voted AGAINST Trump twice says the Mar-a-lago Subpoena is way too broad. He looked up all those facts. He said it was way too broad. Robert Barnes, a US Civil Rights attorney who is representing Amos Miller and many other well known cases has said the same. Both have been found to be right in their legal analysis many times. These are not "some" lawyers, but well known and respected legal EXPERTS.

Yet, some journalist talks to a political talking head and says the subpoena is fine, so everyone accepts that.

(OJ, here it comes!!)

Just because we all hate Nazis does not mean their civil rights should be ignored. Right now, the hatred of Trump is justifying many civil rights to be ignored or bent really far. If they can do it to Trump, they can do it to anyone. There are much more powerful forces in the US and the US government than Donald Trump. They own the government and do not want to give up that power.

[Jazman]

I am not a lawyer, but I listen to lawyers about 4-6 hours a week discuss all this stuff. Meygn Kelly often will have two lawyers that are from the two different camps and they discuss stuff and present each side. It can be quite interesting and illuminating. I also listen to Alan Dershowitz "DerShow." I also listen to Viva Frei(Canadian Lawyer) and Robert Barnes(US Civil Rights Lawyer). I download their podcasts and listen while I work.

Sounds pretty one-sided.

I certainly don't have 4-6 hours a week to listen to people on this subject, but I don't think the things you are saying about discovery are true. And if you have 4-6 hours a week to listen to lawyers, perhaps it would be helpful to listen to some other sources?

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-libra ... n-fairness

Discovery is the means by which one party in a legal action seeks to learn as much as possible about the opposing party's case in order to devise an appropriate trial strategy.

Trump's team has every right to any evidence that will be used in court against him. They also have the right to this:

The discovery right is limited to evidence in the Government's possession that is both favorable to the defense and material to the issue of guilt or innocence.

So if there's anything that would show that Trump is innocent of the specific charges against him, the DOJ does need to produce it if they are aware of it.

They do not have the right to a sprawling, unlimited demand for whatever they can think of, and that would almost certainly require so much time that there could not be a trial. Which is, after all, their goal.

As I've learned more about the legal process and court procedures etc because of some elites (on both sides of aisle) being called to the courts of rule of law, I think I understand better why authoritarians dislike a court system that's been developing for centuries now... ie British common law/courts up to our present American one. Besides the judicial being a check to the other branches of gov, there are a multitude of checks & balances within the judicial system... It makes for a slow and frustrating and imperfect process sometimes, but it sure beats the involved parties (judges, jurors, defendants, prosecutors) getting to do whatever they feel like, whenever they want, any way they want...).

[Bootstrap]

Beyond that, you might want to look up the basic facts behind the Mar-a-lago subpoena - what documents they were looking for, how they knew they were in Trump's possession, etc. You can find lawyers who will tell you any story you want.

So a 50+ year tenured law professor who has written 52 books and has argued cases in front of the Supreme Court, a registered Democrat, and a person who voted AGAINST Trump twice says the Mar-a-lago Subpoena is way too broad. He looked up all those facts. He said it was way too broad. Robert Barnes, a US Civil Rights attorney who is representing Amos Miller and many other well known cases has said the same. Both have been found to be right in their legal analysis many times. These are not "some" lawyers, but well known and respected legal EXPERTS.

Yet, some journalist talks to a political talking head and says the subpoena is fine, so everyone accepts that.

Here's a pattern: I ask you a question about basic facts. You turn it into a question about partisan factions and why we need to accept your answers, but you don't answer the basic facts question. Repeatedly, you scold me if I don't defer to your expert. Then you falsely claim I'm quoting CNN or some journalist, even if I tell you what sources I am actually using. Clearly, there are many legal experts with qualifications as good as Dershowitz's who disagree with him. So choosing your favorite elite doesn't solve the problem.

I'd like to have a discussion about facts.

Here's the question again: What documents were they looking for, how did they know they were in Trump's possession? For extra credit, why is this relevant to the crimes they were charging? Use whatever sources you want. But surely your sources will agree that (1) they asked for specific documents that they knew were probably in his possession, (2) these were the documents he had refused to return, (3) they believed - rightly - that these documents were in Mar-a-lago, and (4) if Trump can prove that they were just on a fishing expedition, he can have his lawyer argue that in court. The same laws of evidence apply here.