Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(125,772 posts)
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 08:36 AM Feb 12

Aileen Cannon Meets With Donald Trump's Lawyers in Private

Source: Newsweek

Published Feb 12, 2024 at 6:26 AM EST


The judge in Donald Trump's classified documents case is to have a top-secret meeting with Trump's lawyer to discuss classified files he wants to obtain.

The meeting will take place in a secure safe room in Miami where they can discuss highly classified documents without fear of eavesdroppers. "The meeting will be held in a facility suitable for discussion of the classified information contained in the parties'...submission," Judge Aileen Cannon wrote in a court order detailing the meeting arrangements.

The first meeting on Monday will take place from 9.30 a.m. until 2 p.m. She will then hear from prosecutor Jack Smith and his team from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. Tuesday has been set aside for both sides to present additional pleadings. The court previously heard that the Department of Justice has set up two secure rooms in Miami where classified documents found at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate can be viewed by Trump's lawyers and by Smith and his team.

The rooms have special anti-bugging technology installed and no cell phones are allowed inside. Lawyers for Trump's two co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, are not permitted to be present. Trump is seeking classified documents that are covered by the Classified Information Procedures Act.

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-aileen-cannon-florida-classified-documents-secure-room-jack-smith-1869004

65 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Aileen Cannon Meets With Donald Trump's Lawyers in Private (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Feb 12 OP
He doesn't even have security clearance anymore. Novara Feb 12 #1
It says... 2naSalit Feb 12 #4
I often wonder if Jack Smith is ... Novara Feb 12 #8
Though I have... 2naSalit Feb 12 #9
Unfortunately, her career is a lifetime seat on the bench...unless 2/3rds of the Senate decide otherwise. Unlikely. n/t CincyDem Feb 12 #26
That's almost entirely fantasy I'm afraid FBaggins Feb 12 #41
I keep seeing this here, so let me clarify for everyone SlimJimmy Feb 12 #12
No one us saying that; what is being referred to is removing her from this case. ms liberty Feb 12 #16
The AG or special prosecutor can not remove her from the case. Get it? SlimJimmy Feb 12 #18
She would have to be impeached to be removed from the case? nt mitch96 Feb 12 #22
but she can be reassigned orleans Feb 12 #28
Somewhere on DU a few days back, in an article that was posted, slightlv Feb 12 #40
No, actually she can be reassigned, as has been pointed out to you. ms liberty Feb 12 #36
She can NOT be reassigned by the special prosecutor or the AG, Got it? SlimJimmy Feb 12 #46
DID I SAY SHE WOULD BE REASSIGNED OR REMOVED BY THE PROSECTOR? ms liberty Feb 12 #48
Having a bad day are we? SlimJimmy Feb 12 #49
Not what I said. 2naSalit Feb 12 #42
Agreed, only the 11th circuit can reassign her. SlimJimmy Feb 12 #47
i think he's been waiting for her to do something corrupt enough to get her removed. mopinko Feb 12 #13
That's what I'm thinking too. 2naSalit Feb 12 #31
She hasn't done anything super egregious. Calista241 Feb 12 #32
None of those other cases compare and this is NOT how it works. 2naSalit Feb 12 #38
It's a nuanced issue, but Presidents and VPs (both current and former), Senators, Representatives, and Article III 24601 Feb 13 #50
Biden rescinded his access to intelligence briefings in 2021 Novara Feb 13 #54
Your information is correct. The President declined to waive Trump's need to know for future intelligence briefings. 24601 Feb 14 #58
What purpose is served for Trump to see the content of classified documents? Lonestarblue Feb 12 #2
The only possible benefit I can see is louis-t Feb 12 #14
Loose Cannon wants to discuss what else she can do for Trump to secure her SCOTUS appointment Major Nikon Feb 12 #21
If Trump sees witness names Captain Zero Feb 12 #37
Smells fishy. 2naSalit Feb 12 #3
I'm surprised Judge Cannon didn't just invite herself to Mar-a- Lago for the conference Walleye Feb 12 #5
Completely impartial I'm sure Blue Owl Feb 12 #6
And her time is up............. Lovie777 Feb 12 #7
I still think it is moniss Feb 12 #10
Well to get rid of her you got to impeach her Farmer-Rick Feb 12 #23
It's been reported the 11th can moniss Feb 12 #25
I hope that's true Farmer-Rick Feb 12 #34
Yes. The llth Circuit can issue a "Writ of Mandamus" to force her to recuse. Hassin Bin Sober Feb 12 #39
These are cipa hearings.... canon style getagrip_already Feb 12 #11
Thanks. Hopefully you are right. I was going to ask smarter KPN Feb 12 #17
Smith acknowledged that the defense can have its own ex parte communication under CIPA 4 onenote Feb 14 #60
I stand corrected then.... getagrip_already Feb 14 #63
Is anyone worried about "graymail", intheozone Feb 12 #15
That is the purpose of the cipa statutes..... getagrip_already Feb 12 #19
Thanks for this info, good to know. intheozone Feb 12 #20
Will she be serving tea and croissants nevergiveup Feb 12 #24
I think you mean dismiss the case mucifer Feb 12 #27
Rest assured she will call him Mr. President dalton99a Feb 12 #29
I'm glad Jack smith gets to have a meeting from 3-5 jimfields33 Feb 12 #30
4.5 hours (930 am to 2 pm) for TSF team and only 2 hours (3 pm to 5 pm) for Jack Smith's team - where is the parity? iluvtennis Feb 12 #33
I was thinking the same thing Farmer-Rick Feb 12 #35
Who are "those witnesses"- this wasn't about witnesses. And Special Counsel meetings were 2.50 hours more than defense. onenote Feb 13 #57
I wasn't talking to you Farmer-Rick Feb 14 #61
Sorry, I thought a discussion board was for discussion onenote Feb 14 #62
You have nothing to say that I want to know. Farmer-Rick Feb 14 #64
Actually, I did respond to iluvtennis even before I responded to your post. onenote Feb 14 #65
Coffefve break at 10am. 2naSalit Feb 12 #43
Loose Cannon seems dense & dim. Takes longer for them to explain Trump's orders to her Attilatheblond Feb 12 #44
total time of ex parte CIPA 4 meetings: Special Counsel 5 hours, 55 minutes; defense 3 hours 25 minutes onenote Feb 13 #56
This message was self-deleted by its author LudwigPastorius Feb 12 #45
Uh-HUH!!! calimary Feb 13 #51
Strategy planning meeting, free from prying ears. Chainfire Feb 13 #52
And with a court reporter. And consistent with CIPA 4 as described by Smith. onenote Feb 13 #55
She wants to make sure she has her instructions perfectly clear. BlueKota Feb 13 #53
I Lean 4 Trump. Kid Berwyn Feb 14 #59

Novara

(5,637 posts)
1. He doesn't even have security clearance anymore.
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 08:41 AM
Feb 12

They'd better not be talking about the contents of the classified documents. He doesn't need access to the material to prove he stole the material.

2naSalit

(85,090 posts)
4. It says...
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 08:51 AM
Feb 12

The attorney(s), I'm taking that as asshole won't be there. The fight is about who gets to see what so I'm thinking it's a strategy meeting between the judge and the attorney. When Smith gets in, later in the day, he'll be able to tell if he needs to have her removed.


She could even put herself in legal jeopardy if she keeps showing favoritism, charges like obstruction, for instance.

Novara

(5,637 posts)
8. I often wonder if Jack Smith is ...
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 09:00 AM
Feb 12

... sticking with her because getting another judge up to speed will take too much time.

Or maybe she hasn't done anything egregious enough yet to get her removed.

I certainly hope Smith wasn't given orders by his boss (Garland) to just roll with it because to demand her recusal would "look too partisan." I don't trust Garland.

2naSalit

(85,090 posts)
9. Though I have...
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 09:19 AM
Feb 12

Lost confidence in Garland to a large degree, I don't think he would, much less could, influence Smith. What I do see is that Smith will have grounds to seek her removal by the 11th Circuit, they could take it over and expedite the case to someone in the district, like themselves, who holds higher stature than Cannon does. Her bosses so to speak. Things could move right along if that happens. If she makes any other move to delay or obstruct as she is, she's going to feel some pain. I hope she is charged with obstruction and is booted off the bench entirely. She is unfit to serve in the capacity to which she was improperly appointed.

I think she was one of those hand picked rush job judges appointed at the end of 2020 whose sole purpose is to do what she's doing. I hope it ends her career.

CincyDem

(6,202 posts)
26. Unfortunately, her career is a lifetime seat on the bench...unless 2/3rds of the Senate decide otherwise. Unlikely. n/t
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 11:12 AM
Feb 12

FBaggins

(26,593 posts)
41. That's almost entirely fantasy I'm afraid
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 02:40 PM
Feb 12

There is a decent chance that she would be overturned on appeal for any major decisions, but even that isn't particularly likely. Just as Trump has a goal of delaying justice until after the election... Smith has a goal of getting to the finish liine before November - and adding an appellate court review on comparatively minor matters is not appealing (pun intended).

There's very little chance that she will be removed from the case Almost none at all that she will be prosecuted (judges have immunity for their decisions)... and absolutely zero chance that the 11th circuit (which leans red BTW) will take over the case themselves prior to a verdict at the district level.

SlimJimmy

(3,146 posts)
12. I keep seeing this here, so let me clarify for everyone
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 10:09 AM
Feb 12

Cannon is a federal judge, she can't be removed by the special prosecutor, or AG Garland - they don't have the power. She must be impeached to be removed from office since she serves a lifetime appointment.

ms liberty

(8,391 posts)
16. No one us saying that; what is being referred to is removing her from this case.
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 10:23 AM
Feb 12

Which yes, can be done.

orleans

(33,880 posts)
28. but she can be reassigned
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 11:16 AM
Feb 12



But what if Cannon does not recuse herself? One possibility that should be explored is for the chief judge of the district court, Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga, to reassign the case pursuant to the court’s power under federal law to “assign … cases so far as [local] rules and orders do not otherwise prescribe.” Nothing in the Southern District of Florida’s local rules or internal operating procedures is to the contrary. Those local procedures provide for Cannon and her colleagues to agree to transfer the case to another judge. The chief judge should have a vigorous discussion with her under that provision. If Cannon demurs, though, the rules are silent about what happens next and so the federal statute comes into play for the chief judge to reassign the case. She too can point to logistical concerns, including the security ones, in reassigning it to a judge in Miami—saving face for Cannon.


We recognize that such intervention by the chief judge is not an everyday occurrence. If it doesn’t happen, though, there are other options. The more likely possibility here if the Southern District of Florida chooses not to deal with this issue is that the 11th Circuit should be called upon to reassign the case to a different judge at the earliest opportunity. As the case is lodged at the trial court level and is not before the circuit at the moment, that reassignment would likely come only as part of a reversal on appeal of one of Cannon’s decisions.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/06/trump-indictment-remove-judge-aileen-cannon.html

slightlv

(2,586 posts)
40. Somewhere on DU a few days back, in an article that was posted,
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 02:05 PM
Feb 12

mentioned some type of "3 strikes" rule at the 11th. Does anyone know anything more about that? Since that one reading, I've not seen it mentioned again, which makes me think it was a red herring. However, it is intriguing. If anyone has any info, especially as it pertains to this case, I'm all ears!

ms liberty

(8,391 posts)
36. No, actually she can be reassigned, as has been pointed out to you.
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 01:49 PM
Feb 12

And since your response to me was rude, completely unnecessary and made you sound like quite the ahole, any conversation we will or could have going forward is over.

SlimJimmy

(3,146 posts)
46. She can NOT be reassigned by the special prosecutor or the AG, Got it?
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 04:40 PM
Feb 12

Sorry to be "rude", but you don't seem to get it for some reason. Is that on purpose or because your are ignorant of the process?

ms liberty

(8,391 posts)
48. DID I SAY SHE WOULD BE REASSIGNED OR REMOVED BY THE PROSECTOR?
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 07:15 PM
Feb 12

OR BY THE AG? NO I FUCKING DID NOT, IN EITHER POST. BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INACCURATE.

YOU NEED TO BRUSH UP ON YOUR READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS, AND YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY BUT OH YEAH, YOU'RE STILL ACTING LIKE AN AHOLE.

AND YES, I AM FUCKING SCREAMING ON PURPOSE.

SlimJimmy

(3,146 posts)
49. Having a bad day are we?
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 10:16 PM
Feb 12

I was referring to this comment. Then you jumped in and said she can be removed. I simply clarified that it would not be the special prosecutor or the AG that does it. Only the 11th Circuit can do that. Feel free to cuss me and type in all caps; it doesn't bother me at all.

I often wonder if Jack Smith is ... sticking with her because getting another judge up to speed will take too much time. Or maybe she hasn't done anything egregious enough yet to get her removed. I certainly hope Smith wasn't given orders by his boss (Garland) to just roll with it because to demand her recusal would "look too partisan." I don't trust Garland.

2naSalit

(85,090 posts)
42. Not what I said.
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 02:44 PM
Feb 12

I was talking about two separate things.

1. She can be removed from the case by the 11th Circuit.

2. I hope she's disciplined and eventually impeached, thus ending her career. This case should be in evidence.

Sorry for not being more articulate.

SlimJimmy

(3,146 posts)
47. Agreed, only the 11th circuit can reassign her.
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 04:42 PM
Feb 12

Not the special prosecutor or the AG. Of course, when I pointed this out to another poster, I was being Rude, and an Ahole. (their words not mine)

mopinko

(69,566 posts)
13. i think he's been waiting for her to do something corrupt enough to get her removed.
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 10:15 AM
Feb 12

and i think this is it.

Calista241

(5,578 posts)
32. She hasn't done anything super egregious.
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 12:59 PM
Feb 12

We bitch about every slight delay and analyze the dates of every hearing, but this is how the law works. The wheel of justice moves slowly.

If you look at Michael Jackson, he was charged on November 20, 2003, and his trial didn't start until February 28, 2005. They didn't have a verdict until June of 2005. That was a state trial, but with a similarly high profile defendants.

Most Federal cases go to trial 12 - 18 months after charges are filed on average. Since Trump was charged in June 2023, we're still well under the average time it takes to bring charges. So, if we stick to the averages, we can expect Trump to go to trial between June and December 2024.

At some point though, someone is going to have to ask the question if this case is interfering in the election. I know what we all think that answer should be, but ultimately you and I are not in charge.

2naSalit

(85,090 posts)
38. None of those other cases compare and this is NOT how it works.
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 01:57 PM
Feb 12

What the prejudiced judge has done is purposely delay any progress in the trial going forward by a series of "paperless orders" which are orders handed down that cannot be appealed, each of which is timely in that they are issued at the last minute and cause undue delay. Watch a couple Meidas Touch videos, they lay it out quite clearly as do many other legal eagles.

This judge is inexperienced, was placed in her position for this purpose and is being coached by federalist society heads and others, perhaps SCOTUS members. I would bet money on it.

This most recent order she issued was on Friday after the courts had closed, you know, like a Friday news dump only this is a federal judge pulling this shit. I'm thinking she'll be removed and soon. Then we can get on with this business.

This isn't just a court case, this is a national security issue of the most important kind.

24601

(3,935 posts)
50. It's a nuanced issue, but Presidents and VPs (both current and former), Senators, Representatives, and Article III
Tue Feb 13, 2024, 07:58 AM
Feb 13

Justices and Judges are not adjudicated for security clearances that would otherwise be required to access classified information.

For everyone else, the three requirements for access to classified information are a favorably adjudicated security clearance, a signed Non-Disclosure Agreement, and the need to know.

Without needing a clearance and without signing an NDA, the above officials are granted access based only on the need to know. They all remain bound by the laws, Executive Orders, and regulations with respect to the handling, storage, transmission, and dissemination of classified information. Sitting Presidents may also waive or change applicable EOs and regulations. Sitting Presidents may unilaterally declassify information that is not classified by statute, e.g., certain Cryptologic Information or Atomic Energy Restricted Data & Former Restricted Data. I believe (but don't know for sure) that they remain bound by the classification applied pursuant to a treaty, for example, NATO CONFIDENTIAL, NATO SECRET, or NATO TOP SECRET, including NATO TS COSMIC, their equivalent to RD/FTD.

The Presidential Records Act also includes provisions for waiving. need-to-know determinations for former POTUS and VPOPTUS.

24601

(3,935 posts)
58. Your information is correct. The President declined to waive Trump's need to know for future intelligence briefings.
Wed Feb 14, 2024, 08:45 AM
Feb 14

This early February 2021 decision did not affect access to the existing classified information that originated during his administration. The basis of the Florida indictments isn't for unlawful access to classified information, but for failing to ensure proper archiving, storage, and dissemination - and for obstructing justice.

During 2016-2017, I was assigned to a small team of desk officers who received the PDB, for reformatting and dissemination to our Agency's authorized recipients. We also were responsible for ensuring the PDB Staff had our input and, when requested, more detailed sourcing.

The funny thing is that since Trump tended to receive the PDB via oral briefing, we probably read more of his PDBs than he did.

Lonestarblue

(9,709 posts)
2. What purpose is served for Trump to see the content of classified documents?
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 08:44 AM
Feb 12

He is being prosecuted for illegally taking documents (classified or not) to which he was not entitled under the Presidential Records Act, refusing to return them when asked, and then obstructing law enforcement by hiding them. The indictment is not based on the classified content, so how does this help Trump? And how does the judge not see that the content is immaterial? I’m mystified about how this helps Trump’s defense.

louis-t

(23,105 posts)
14. The only possible benefit I can see is
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 10:22 AM
Feb 12

his lawyers will say "nothing to see here", "not really anything important in the documents."

Captain Zero

(6,655 posts)
37. If Trump sees witness names
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 01:50 PM
Feb 12

We are going to find them dead eventually.
Or he will start talking about details of secrets on the campaign trail.

If she divulges ANYTHING TO THOSE LAWYERS. Smith should be told exactly what was divulged to them. Anything and everything.

moniss

(3,698 posts)
10. I still think it is
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 09:37 AM
Feb 12

quite possible that she is going to go through all of this early delay, push the trial date off as much as possible and then just as the trial is to start she will grant a motion from the defense to dismiss with prejudice. Jack can appeal that and the Appellate court will be most likely to rebuke her and overturn. That's why I'm hoping Jack has a plan to not wait much longer before asking for her to be removed. She was wrong to disclose to the defense the name(s) of witnesses and threats made. The evidence is glaringly clear that once the Orange Ruski names someone the death threats follow immediately. She is knowingly endangering the lives of witnesses and their families. That alone is a monumental error and it is so obvious that it can reasonably be argued that it was also purposeful on her part. A judge knowingly and/or purposely, in an upcoming trial before her, placing witnesses for the prosecution at extreme peril for their safety is enough to have the state judicial review process be asked remove her from the bench.

Farmer-Rick

(9,948 posts)
23. Well to get rid of her you got to impeach her
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 11:06 AM
Feb 12

But she can be reprimanded in public, told to correct the disability, ask for her retirement or recusal or referred for impeachment.

getagrip_already

(13,778 posts)
11. These are cipa hearings.... canon style
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 09:49 AM
Feb 12

Under cipa section 4, the prosecutor and judge meet alone to determine which materials are so sensitive that the defense team can only see summaries and not the docs themselves, even under seal.

There is no provision for meeting ex parte with defense team. That is a Canon invention.

The hearing later with smith's team is required. If it goes against him, he can appeal.

KPN

(15,542 posts)
17. Thanks. Hopefully you are right. I was going to ask smarter
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 10:29 AM
Feb 12

legal minds here whether there is a legal basis for an ex parte meeting with the defense.

There’s no question in my mind that this is fishy. Jack Smith should be figuratively screaming today — and I’m guessing he will be.

onenote

(42,067 posts)
60. Smith acknowledged that the defense can have its own ex parte communication under CIPA 4
Wed Feb 14, 2024, 09:58 AM
Feb 14


From the Special Counsel's June 23 discussion of CIPA at page 10: "Defendants may be permitted to file their own ex parte submission outlining the theory of the defense to aid the court in the review of any classified materials."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.32.0_3.pdf

Also CIPA 4 doesn't say anything about the judge meeting in person with anyone. But it happens, as do meetings with the defense to get a bet understanding of the basis for claiming that being provided the classified information in dispute is relevant and helpful to their case.

Text of CIPA 4:
SEC. 4. The court, upon a sufficient showing, may authorize the United States to delete specified items of classified information from documents to be made available to the defendant through dis- covery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to sub- stitute a summary of the information for such classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the clas- sified information would tend to prove. The court may permit the United States to make a request for such authorization in the form of a written statement to be inspected by the court alone. If the court enters an order granting relief following such an ex parte showing, the entire text of the statement of the United States shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.

intheozone

(1,098 posts)
15. Is anyone worried about "graymail",
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 10:23 AM
Feb 12

is Trump trying get contents of the classified documents so he can graymail the government with the contents? He might not remember exactly what he had taken so he needs the info now to try to be able to use it to get charges dropped. Or am I just being overly conspiratorial?

getagrip_already

(13,778 posts)
19. That is the purpose of the cipa statutes.....
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 10:44 AM
Feb 12

They are intended to prevent a defendendent from using the right of discovery and public disclosure to blackmail the govt with its own secrets.

The section 4 hearings allow the govt to say some documents are so sensitive, they cannot be shown to the defense. Only a summary of the documents may be shared or used at trial.

Other documents remain under seal and are never made public, but may be shown to the defense team or jury.

But the judge has to agree. If Canon says the gov is being too restrictive, she can deny the requests.

At which point Smith is permitted an instant appeal. She couldn't release anything pending that appeal.



jimfields33

(15,192 posts)
30. I'm glad Jack smith gets to have a meeting from 3-5
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 11:40 AM
Feb 12

Tomorrow. Maybe he’ll explain why it’s not good to allow the documents to be seen.

iluvtennis

(19,665 posts)
33. 4.5 hours (930 am to 2 pm) for TSF team and only 2 hours (3 pm to 5 pm) for Jack Smith's team - where is the parity?
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 01:17 PM
Feb 12

Farmer-Rick

(9,948 posts)
35. I was thinking the same thing
Mon Feb 12, 2024, 01:25 PM
Feb 12

Trump lawyers get more than twice as much time with her. Expect all those witnesses in this case to be threatened.

onenote

(42,067 posts)
57. Who are "those witnesses"- this wasn't about witnesses. And Special Counsel meetings were 2.50 hours more than defense.
Tue Feb 13, 2024, 10:54 PM
Feb 13

The ex parte CIPA 4 meetings today were follow ups to the 3 hour ex parte CIPA 4 meeting with the Special Counsel on January 31. So there was a total of 5 hours, 55 minutes of ex parte CIPA 4 meetings with the Special Counsel and 3 hours 25 minutes CIPA 4 ex parte meeting with all of the defense lawyers combined. There also was a 2 hour 15 minute non-ex parte meeting attended by both the Special Counsel and counsel for Nauta and De Oliveira.

onenote

(42,067 posts)
62. Sorry, I thought a discussion board was for discussion
Wed Feb 14, 2024, 10:08 AM
Feb 14

DU members post in response to other posters' comments all the time. It's not stalking for heaven's sake.
And how was pointing out that the meeting wasn't about witnesses and adding factual information about the total time of the meetings "rude"?

Farmer-Rick

(9,948 posts)
64. You have nothing to say that I want to know.
Wed Feb 14, 2024, 10:15 AM
Feb 14

You clearly targetted me when I was just agreeing with iluvtennis. You didn't attack iluvtennis for saying the same thing, just me. This is not our first encounter.

I guess the only solution for you is ignore.

onenote

(42,067 posts)
65. Actually, I did respond to iluvtennis even before I responded to your post.
Wed Feb 14, 2024, 10:29 AM
Feb 14

Ignore away if you want. You give yourself too much credit thinking I "target" you -- I don't pay attention to the names of the posters that I respond to.

onenote

(42,067 posts)
56. total time of ex parte CIPA 4 meetings: Special Counsel 5 hours, 55 minutes; defense 3 hours 25 minutes
Tue Feb 13, 2024, 10:48 PM
Feb 13

Last edited Wed Feb 14, 2024, 09:33 AM - Edit history (1)

January 31 -- ex parte CIPA 4 meeting with Special Counsel --- 3 hours

Feb 12 - ex parte CIPA 4 meeting with defense counsel for Trump, Nauta, and De Oliveira -- 3 hours 25 minutes

Feb 12 -- ex parte CIPA 4 meeting with Special Counsel -- 2 hours

Feb 13 - non-ex parte meeting with Special Counsel and counsel for Nauta and De Oliveira -- 2 hours 15 minutes

Feb 13 -- ex parte CIPA 4 meeting with Special Counsel -- 55 minutes

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/?page=2

Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

calimary

(80,218 posts)
51. Uh-HUH!!!
Tue Feb 13, 2024, 08:11 AM
Feb 13

Methinks somebody’s cozying up…

I said in another thread, I bet she thinks she can cute him into naming her to the next Supreme Court appointment and then she’ll be set for life.

Not sure why that nags me in the back of my mind, but it does.

Kid Berwyn

(14,351 posts)
59. I Lean 4 Trump.
Wed Feb 14, 2024, 09:03 AM
Feb 14

Judge Bannon knows Trump doesn't like to write anything down.

This way she'll be certain to do the wrong thing.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Aileen Cannon Meets With ...