Supreme court rejects trump appeal in one sentence ruling.

The noose is getting tighter.
The DOJ is appealing the "Special Master" ruling also.
Judge cannon's orders are falling apart.

"Supreme Court rejects Trump request on Mar-a-Lago documents
The one-sentence order amounted to a quick and sharp denial of an emergency request by the former president
By Robert Barnes and Perry Stein
Updated October 13, 2022 at 4:45 p.m. EDT|Published October 13, 2022 at 3:07 p.m. EDT


The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to reinstate Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s order that a special master review classified documents taken in an FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump’s Florida home and private club.

There were no noted dissents to the court’s unsigned, one-sentence order. It amounted to a quick and sharp rejection of an emergency request by the former president to intervene in the high-profile document review, which is part of an ongoing criminal investigation of the potential mishandling of classified material after Trump left the White House.

The review is being done by special master Raymond J. Dearie, a federal judge in Brooklyn who was recommended for the job by Trump’s legal team. Trump’s lawyers asked for a review of all of the approximately 11,000 documents seized by the FBI to see whether any should be shielded from investigators because of attorney-client or executive privilege.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit put on hold Cannon’s order that 103 of the seized documents that bore classified markings should be part of Dearie’s review. It also reversed Cannon’s finding that the Justice Department could not continue its use of the classified documents in a criminal probe.
continue its use of the classified documents in a criminal probe.


The Trump team did not try to persuade the Supreme Court to withhold the documents from Justice Department investigators, which is considered the more important part of the appeals court’s order. But it did challenge the 11th Circuit’s order that Dearie should not examine the classified documents.

Such a review might have required showing the classified files to Trump’s legal team so they could have made claims about privilege. The government has said some of the seized documents are extremely sensitive, and The Washington Post has reported that authorities recovered one document that described a foreign government’s military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities.
The Trump team’s request said, in effect, that key parts of Cannon’s order were not properly before the 11th Circuit. The Justice Department’s response was that all provisions of Cannon’s involvement in the case were entangled and that the appeals court’s action was warranted.

The Justice Department said allowing an outside arbiter to review the classified documents would “irreparably injure” the government and argued that Trump had offered no evidence he would be harmed without the Supreme Court’s intervention. As a former president, the government said, Trump has no “plausible” claims of ownership over sensitive government materials."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ied-documents/

Cannon should just Baton Rouge glad she has a lifetime appointment because it’s clear she doesn’t deserve her judgeship. Figures though for a Trumpy. They wanted quantity not quality in those rushed judicial appointments.

Bump.

This thread will stay near top

Good deal

If this was a one sentence rebuke, why didn't you post it? I'm not doing a link for a single sentence. So, I'm wondering if there is more to this than you want anyone to know.

If this was a one sentence rebuke, why didn't you post it? I'm not doing a link for a single sentence. So, I'm wondering if there is more to this than you want anyone to know. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Wonder away.
Only you would think I would or could conceal a Supreme Court ruling.
In less time than it took for you to post the above you could have checked it yourself.
In the info I posted, there was a link to the ruling. It didn't show as a link after I copied and pasted the info. Since the ruling is available in so many places, you not seeing it shows your lack of a standing method of confirming or disproving information.
As usual, your posting ignores common sense. If I had included the ruling, you would have challenged the source without providing contrary information.

Of Guidelines 1, 3 & 4 . . .

• #1 - Avoid cases of unprovoked rudeness to others. No place for it here. Yes, with the dynamic nature of the threads and topics, tempers will flare and things will become heated from time to time. You may often encounter individuals who become passionate or emotional when expressing one's opinion or point of view. That's all understood and perfectly acceptable within reason…….but, start slamming or bashing another member and be met with consequences.
• #3 - Disrespect to others, IN GENERAL, will be considered an item of low tolerance, especially when posting in our coed forums. Follow the Golden Rule and treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. This applies to fellow members as well as staff. We do not require that you have respect for us, but we do require that you treat us respectfully in the public forums. If you feel the need to vent, gripe, or blow off some steam regarding a staff member's action or decision, we ask that you keep it private. Email, RTM, or the PM system would be the appropriate avenue to take in such cases. In cases where you would like to request additional clarity about a staff decision, you are free to pursue an answer in either a public forum or private means of communication. If handled publicly, post your inquiry in a respectful manner.
• #4 - Blatant insults or hostility toward another member will be met with staff intervention. This applies to using our coed forums for name calling, personal attacks, or vulgar slang terms to describe fellow members. If you have legitimate concerns about another member here, share them tactfully in the appropriate private forums or with staff.

I think the official one sentence ruling was, "just because you tried to stack the courts for your personal benefit does not mean we are not going to follow the law so stop crying to us all of the time, dummy."

I think it was that or, "will you please just leave us the fuck alone with your crybaby bullshit?"

I think it was that or, "will you please just leave us the fuck alone with your crybaby bullshit?" Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Is that directed to the thin skinned people who believe they've been living in "pure hell" for three years?

Haha. No, it was directed to those poor judges who have to deal with his numerous frivolous lawsuits when the big orange crybaby doesn't get his way. At this point, they don't even want to waste their time writing a paragraph when they dismiss his bullshit claims.

And off topic but damn my Lakers suck. I can't believe I was looking forward to watching their 1st game of the season all day while having nothing but positive thoughts about a new roster and a new head coach.

I almost feel as gullible as a Trumpette but I'm not even close. What I do have in common with Trumpettes though is that we like watching and cheering for losers on TV, (somewhat on topic).

Where's the beef?


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/18/u...privilege.html