placeholder

Well, according to Jonathan Turley, he should. You may know who Turley is., He's one of the very few legal experts who supported Aline Cannon's decision to appoint a special master. He supported John Durham's investigation and prosecutions. He also believes that the Bragg prosecution of Trump is political. Yet here's what he says about this case: New Trump indictment over documents is a 'whole different ballgame,' says Jonathan Turley "It is an extremely damning indictment." https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-trump-indictment-documents-whole-different-ballgame-jonathan-turley

Yes, you can just walk in there. You think every guest that shows up has been vetted by security agencies? The Secret Service is there to protect Trump and his family. Not to guard documents. Not their function.

Actually, if you read the article further, it says this: "Ms. Noble did not immediately respond to an email seeking clarification of what happened." That said, the NY Times has a subsequent article which does feature the clerk's explanation. It turns out that, in practice, there were a lot less judges available. So the odds were considerably less than 15 to 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/10/us/politics/judge-aileen-cannon-trump-documents.html to bypass paywall: https://archive.ph/rXL95

But as I recall, when the New York times call the clerk to ask if that's how this second selection was done, they got no response.

Just a further note on Chinese debt: China’s debt overhang far exceeds the burdens facing the United States. As recently as 2020, total debt in the United States relative to GDP exceeded China’s. But as of mid-2022, China’s relative debt burden stood 40 percent higher than America’s. If this comparison does not highlight China’s precarious situation, it is worth considering that more developed countries, such as the United States, tend, because of their greater relative wealth, to have higher relative debt burdens and can support them more easily than less developed economies, such as China’s. https://www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2023/01/16/chinas-overwhelming-debt-burden-points-to-still-deeper-problems/?sh=2001ac9b4433

Xi inherited a strongly growing economy thanks to the policies of his predecessor to step bank and let free enterprise flourish. I know that's a simplification but the fact is that the Chinese govt was far less intrusive in the commercial and previous policy than it is now. Not only is the government inserting political apparatchiks into businesses, but it's also requiring them to contribute cash to prop up unprofitable state enterprises. Once again, the government sector is bigger than the private sector. The size of China's debt problem is truly staggering. At last measure, debt of all sorts – public and private and in all sectors of the economy — amounted to the equivalent of $51.9 trillion, almost three times the size of China's economy as measured by the country's gross domestic product. https://www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2023/01/16/chinas-overwhelming-debt-burden-points-to-still-deeper-problems/?sh=2001ac9b4433 Much of this is due to the government's overreliance on the construction boom in the real estate market. At one point, 37% of economic activity in China was in construction. That's huge. It's about the same as in the US. But US private debt is in a lot better shape than Chinese private debt given that much of China's debt is in the overbuilt real estate sector.

With the evidence that's been made public, the case against Trump for the Capitol insurrection definitely looks weaker than the documents case. Of course, one reason for that is that the evidence in the document case is so strong. In fact, it looked strong enough before the indictment but a lot stronger now. So maybe, if Trump is indicted in that case, very strong evidence will emerge, too.

Let's see if the spanking she got from the Appeals Court panel will have had a chastening effect.

Starting now, the chance is only 1 in 15. The past outcome has no bearing on the second outcome. If someone flips a coin once and it comes out heads, does that mean that the next time they flip it the odds are only 1 in 4 that it will come out heads? Now if before the coins were ever flipped, and they had to predict the outcomes, then the odds would have been 1 in 4 that heads would have come up twice in a row.

You sure about that? "Nauta texted another Trump staffer a picture of documents containing classified information that were spewed all over a bathroom floor. 'I opened the door and found this,' he wrote, according to the indictment - and included two photographs of the spilled documents, at least one of which contained classified documents. The indictment states that the specific documents were related to intelligence between the 'Five Eyes' countries. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12179535/Trump-accuses-FBI-STAGING-classified-documents-Mar-Lago.html

I think fraudster is a more accurate term. And actually, in NY State the rules governing schools like that are quite strict about the claims they make for outcomes.. Moreover, schools like that are not allowed to call themselves "University". In fact they're not allowed to claim any academic designation without a license from the State govt. A step that Trump apparently forgot to take.

Well, if you've got something, you're keeping it extremely well hidden.

Utterly false: Photos from Trump indictment show boxes of classified documents stored in Mar-a-Lago shower, ballroom https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/photos-from-trump-indictment-show-boxes-of-classified-documents-stored-in-mar-a-lago-shower-ballroom

Not every school agrees to settle a civil fraud claim by returning the full tuition to students, though. There was a huge mountain of evidence against him starting with the claim that students would be taught by successful real estate professionals. That was decidedly not the case. Misrepresenting the credentials of the teachers is defintely fraudulent.

You posted what you allege you were told. And it's not a matter of "if processes are changing" they already have changed. They changed in 2014 when the govt issued a set of rules about how to treat batteries. And as the papers I've cited show, contrary to your claims that EV's are left to rot, that is not the case. No reason to ship them to Poland or anywhere else. And I mentioned 2014 because either your alleged conversation with this scrap dealer occurred 10 years ago, or he was full of B.S., or the conversation never occurred.

You claimed it made his day. Here's a definition of it made someone's day: "to cause someone's day to be pleasant or happy." https://www.google.com/search?q=it+made+his+day+defination&oq=it+made+his+day+defination&aqs=chrome..69i57.6693j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 And you claimed it was sad that this news made his day. In other words made him happy. So you construed he was happy and that it was sad that he felt that way. How is alleging someone's emotional state and judging to to be sad that someone felt that way, not personal? You've got less than nothing.

Here Trump gives 2 options re the classified documents: Trump has repeatedly suggested that the FBI planted evidence during the raid to recover presidential records as part of a dispute between Trump and the National Archives. “Did they drop anything into those piles, or did they do it later?” Trump mused Wednesday during an interview with Fox News personality Sean Hannity. https://nypost.com/2022/09/22/dearie-gives-trump-last-chance-to-dispute-fbi-inventory/

Especially given that Trump destroyed the real estate business that he inherited from his father.

I wasn't aware that I was disagreeing with you. I'm still not. I just thought I would provide some useful additional information.

When someone has nothing to say that addresses the issues, I guess one way to go is to take a cheap shot by making it personal. You've got nothing.

Which is why he committed the great sacrifice of putting his business in a blind trust so there could be no question about his dedication to making America great again....oh wait a minute...

A decision that met the judicial equivalent of being laughed out of court when the three member panel of judges, including two very conservative ones, overturned her decision decisively and quite harshly.

Good point. As noted above it looks like it's considerably less.

What the latest polling says about Trump's classified documents indictment Meanwhile, 63% of Americans, called "taking highly classified documents from the White House and obstructing efforts to retrieve them" a serious crime. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/latest-polling-says-trumps-classified-documents-indictment-rcna87478 Given the release of so much new damning evidence, it's hard to believe that Americans will now be more likely believe that the prosecution of Trump in the Mar a Lago case is unfair.

False, It's not a crime for an ex-President to possess such documents. It has to be shown that the possession was willful. There's a superabundance of evidence to show that Trump's possession was willful. Not only that, but it is a crime to refuse to return those documents when they are requested by NARA. No other Presidents have refused to do so. It is a crime to deny that you are in possession of such documents when in fact you possess them. There's a lot of evidence to show that Trump did just that. No evidence to show that other Presidents did so. You've got nothing.