HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Transcripts from the Sept...

Sat Sep 3, 2022, 01:27 PM

Transcripts from the Sept 1 hearing before Judge Cannon

I am not sure if someone has already posted this but you can read the transcripts from the DOJ/Trump hearing on Thursday here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22274704-trumphearingtranscript

11 replies, 855 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Bev54 (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2022, 02:59 PM

1. Thanks for the link, it was very interesting reading. I thought govt case was better than plaintiff

case, but judge may not agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 3, 2022, 03:05 PM

2. Yes the government argues the law, the other side argues on disparaging the FBI

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bev54 (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 3, 2022, 06:42 PM

8. FYI, the FBI "Filter Team" really IS on the hot seat.

The Supreme Court has a case on the docket, United States v Korf seeking to deem "FBI "Filter Teams" unconstitutional under the 6A.

"Filter Teams" have been mentioned negatively in several Court opinions and if the SCOTUS takes the case there's a decent chance that "Filter Teams" may be found unconstitutional.


Here's the 11th Circuit affirming the lower Court...

And here's the SCOTUS appeal.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/korf-v-united-states/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 3, 2022, 07:10 PM

9. This is once again an attorney's office which has client attorney privilege

Not even remotely like this case although Trump's lawyers continue to insert these cases as though they are. Trump's lawyers want a special master to go over not just any attorney privilege, which the team has put aside for both parties to review (DOJ review team says most if not privileged but they put aside, being extra cautious. Trump is still claiming the documents are his and a special master should review, the stolen documents that belong to the archives. This is not even remotely close to being the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bev54 (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 3, 2022, 07:12 PM

10. Like I said... "FBI Filter Teams" are on the hot seat.

That's all I said...

I have no problem with a SM because 1) They're not going to indict before the election anyway... 2) It crosses the t's and dots the i's and takes away ALL silly suggestions of bias.

I won't post the whole Emerson quote... but when you "go after the King..."

You know the rest.

If he somehow wriggles out of this, he'll exit 2x stronger.


Take him down so that there is NO question about his guilt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bev54 (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2022, 03:17 PM

3. Amazing that Trump' s theft of National Archives documents

merits such tremendous verbiage. It seems they lose sight of the fact that these documents are purloined and forcibly returned.

I just hope that when Trump gets sentenced to jail we do not have judges ruling ad infinitum on the proper gait to arrive at the prison, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenWave (Reply #3)

Sat Sep 3, 2022, 03:39 PM

4. It amuses me that Trump lawyers are inferring that injury to Trump would

be that these documents could be used as evidence in a criminal investigation or trial???? Duh yeah, if they read the warrant there are 3 criminal statutes on it. Geez.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bev54 (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 3, 2022, 03:42 PM

6. It amuses me his lawyers never get paid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bev54 (Original post)

Sat Sep 3, 2022, 03:41 PM

5. Was she scheduled to make another decision today?

I thought I saw something about that on one of the news channels?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 3, 2022, 06:01 PM

7. Nothing was said about it in the transcripts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bev54 (Original post)

Sun Sep 4, 2022, 12:19 AM

11. Thank you for posting the link.

I love the way they stated that this was a preindictment response, and that the plaintiff was really asserting a 41(g) motion, even if they didn't characterize it that way, but that he had no possessory interest in the property, anyway, as required by 41(g).

Also, the Gov said that if they wanted to proceed under the PRA, they should have filed in DC (!) Plaintiff never mentions the Espionage Act under which the search warrant was issued. Gov talks about a "preindictment challenge to a search warrant," which they are expecting.

So, I think the tone of the Judge's remarks favor the Plaintiff, except that she specifically asked for Plaintiff to articulate the "irreparable harm" needed, and they couldn't state it.


I'll be stunned if they don't get the SM.

Added: Also, the Gov. made reference to Trump's "unclean hands" down at the bottom of page 22. He comes to Court with unclean hands, a legal term for being a crook. Hah hah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread