Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Come to think of it, I'm not sure a judge is even going to release grand jury information.

So this is all theater where Trump can blame another danged ol judge.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6

 

The only experience I have with the court system is from my divorce several years ago, so I do appreciate your patient explanations. With that in mind, I think you'd appreciate the context provided by this analysis.

image.thumb.png.b601e77e8429a3e8eb9ec080ed0883b8.png
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/18/us/politics/trump-epstein-letter-birthday-courts.html

For months, President Trump has maligned federal judges who rule against his agenda as politically motivated usurpers, referring to them as “U.S.A.-hating judges” and calling for their impeachment. At times, he has called into question the constitutional role of the courts as a check on the presidency.

“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” he posted to social media, while his administration claimed expansive powers to unilaterally deport migrants and defund federal programs.

But in the case of Jeffrey Epstein, Mr. Trump has taken a different view. In this instance, according to a statement the president posted Thursday night, judges have an important role to play in deciding whether and when grand jury materials related to Mr. Epstein’s indictment for sex trafficking can be released to the public.

“I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,” Mr. Trump said on social media on Thursday. The post came shortly after The Wall Street Journal reported on a 50th birthday greeting it said Mr. Trump sent Mr. Epstein in 2003, including a sexually suggestive drawing, an expression of friendship and a reference to secrets they shared. The New York Times has not verified the report.

The idea that a judge should make the final decision about the release of grand jury testimony is normal criminal procedure. “It is illegal to release this material,” Benjamin Wittes, the chief editor of Lawfare and a fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote in an article arguing against its release. “It’s not a choice the attorney general gets to make.”

Evidence presented to the grand jury often includes sensitive information and unproven allegations. The proceedings are kept secret to help gather evidence from witnesses and protect targets of a criminal investigation who might not ultimately be charged.

So under any previous presidential administration, Mr. Trump’s assertion that judges should have the final word on the release of grand jury material would be unremarkable. But his White House has repeatedly sought to undermine both the constitutional role and the public prestige of the judiciary.

The administration’s most intense rhetoric has been directed at district-court judges — the same ones who oversee grand juries and criminal trials. The administration now appears ready to defer to them on how much Epstein-related grand jury material the public should see.

In an emailed statement on Friday, a White House spokeswoman said that comparing Mr. Trump’s stance on Epstein grand jury material with his “well-warranted criticisms of out-of-control district-court judges” was a “false equivalence.”

“The New York Times is comparing apples to oranges to fuel their narrative of the day,” wrote Abigail Jackson, the spokeswoman.

One legal scholar said it was reasonable to take a holistic view of Mr. Trump’s approach to the courts. The president’s statement on Thursday about grand jury testimony amounted to “flip-flopping on the role of judges” when compared to his pattern of hostility toward the courts and judicial review, said Judith Resnik, a law professor at Yale.

“If you believe in the rule of law, you ought to believe that judges have an important role to play in articulating the parameters of lawful actions — not sometimes, but always,” she said.

In other matters, the administration has made clear its view that individual district-court judges wield too much power. According to statements by Mr. Trump and his administration, the judges who have ruled against their agenda include a “far-left activist” and a “radical left lunatic.” Mr. Trump is not the first president to criticize unfavorable rulings, but the severity and tone of his statements about individual judges, as well as his calls for judges to be impeached, have prompted some to urge him to tamp down his language in the face of rising threats to judges.

And a Justice Department whistle-blower has charged that in private, the administration’s disdain for the judiciary goes even further, claiming that he heard one senior official say the government would need to consider ignoring its obligation to follow court orders. That official, Emil Bove III, was later nominated by Mr. Trump to an appellate judgeship. Mr. Bove told lawmakers that he had never advised colleagues to violate a court order; other Justice Department officials denied the allegations.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

They've succeeded in making facts indistinguishable from invention.

 

image.thumb.png.7240b643fd89d6ec0c1195bab7169f3c.png

That'll get 'em shakin' in their boots!

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Haha 2
Posted
21 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

I should have worked much harder

I should have just not bothered

I never show up on weekdays

And something that you learned yesterday

Drive you to work and you'll be on time

These little problems, they're not yours, they're mine

Come on, listen to what I say

I got some secrets that'll make you stay

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
51 minutes ago, Chopper said:

WSJ claimed the Trump–Epstein article was an “exclusive.” But what if they actually showed it to people?

image.thumb.png.bf2d59c5231076196ffb1804df9e322b.png

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.693830/gov.uscourts.flsd.693830.1.0.pdf 

No word on fake citations yet!!

 

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Really shocked he didn't file it in the WPB/Fort Pierce Division.

Also, as currently written, that complaint is going to be shot into the sun without whiskey or hash browns as it inadequately pleads malice.  I suppose they might get one opportunity to amend.

  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Really shocked he didn't file it in the WPB/Fort Pierce Division.

Also, as currently written, that complaint is going to be shot into the sun without whiskey or hash browns as it inadequately pleads malice.  I suppose they might get one opportunity to amend.

Southern District of Florida. Are you sure?

Posted
7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

 

That the potus' attorneys in a 1st Amendment case don't know what a fucking "exclusive" is for a newspaper. 

image.thumb.png.0ff06c385b55bad2d95531bda875ed7a.png

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cmontexas said:

I should have worked much harder

I should have just not bothered

I never show up on weekdays

And something that you learned yesterday

Drive you to work and you'll be on time

These little problems, they're not yours, they're mine

Come on, listen to what I say

I got some secrets that'll make you stay

 

IMG_6347.thumb.jpeg.83d18ed57e2ce3b91272facc1c679d74.jpeg

That’s a young Julian Casablancas of The Strokes standing behind Trump. I believe this photo was taken at the 1991 Elite Look of the Year competition.

He would be 12 or 13 in this photo. I bet he saw some wild shit growing up being the son of John Casablancas.

Edited by Foggy Notion
It just occurred to me that the song above is called Barely Legal.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
21 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Ana “wants” to follow the money because he doesn’t think Trump paid Epstein to traffic girls

Totally coincidently, turnip is making noise about bombing Russia and enabling Ukraine to bomb Moscow.

Posted
10 hours ago, Foggy Notion said:

 

IMG_6347.thumb.jpeg.83d18ed57e2ce3b91272facc1c679d74.jpeg

That’s a young Julian Casablancas of The Strokes standing behind Trump. I believe this photo was taken at the 1991 Elite Look of the Year competition.

He would be 12 or 13 in this photo. I bet he saw some wild shit growing up being the son of John Casablancas.

image.gif.6281b6cebf68aa0172dbfd1272a09e00.gif

Posted
12 hours ago, Foggy Notion said:

 

IMG_6347.thumb.jpeg.83d18ed57e2ce3b91272facc1c679d74.jpeg

That’s a young Julian Casablancas of The Strokes standing behind Trump. I believe this photo was taken at the 1991 Elite Look of the Year competition.

He would be 12 or 13 in this photo. I bet he saw some wild shit growing up being the son of John Casablancas.

 

  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, speed817 said:

Trump with a teen model in the 90s....

r/interesting - President Trump kissing a young model in the 1990s

You have to screenshot things these days, not hotlink them, since someone is scrubbing the internet.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

I don't believe it.  By now, she knows exactly what's in there.  She's got the goods on him now.  No way he risks her leaking it, or  writing a book, or whatever. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I don't believe it.  By now, she knows exactly what's in there.  She's got the goods on him now.  No way he risks her leaking it, or  writing a book, or whatever. 

Are you stupid or something?

I'm sure the guy who paid hush money to a former porn star would never think of using United States taxpayer dollars to buy the silence of an AG he wants to part ways with

Posted

Whatever the truth is about the Epstein list and files, Ghislaine Maxwell is still alive and she knows basically everything. I guess even if she wanted to talk, she has a logistical dilemma in how to do that from her prison cell without accidentally suiciding herself.

Is there something about her legal situation that prevents Trump from pardoning her in exchange for her silence? Or would it just be the public backlash against him? He already pardoned J6ers and child pornographers and countless other criminals.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

Are you stupid or something?

I'm sure the guy who paid hush money to a former porn star would never think of using United States taxpayer dollars to buy the silence of an AG he wants to part ways with

 

You know, a month ago, if Trump wanted to fire Bondi, he could have asked ole' Rupert to see if they could scrape together a few nickels to find her a soft landing spot each night on Fox.

That option is out the window now.

 

 

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

You know, a month ago, if Trump wanted to fire Bondi, he could have asked ole' Rupert to see if they could scrape together a few nickels to find her a soft landing spot each night on Fox.

That option is out the window now.

 

 

 

Murdoch is going to reach some inconsequential settlement to help "clear Trump's name."  Bank on it. The WSJ is just a play toy to him.

Posted
26 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

Are you stupid or something?

I'm sure the guy who paid hush money to a former porn star would never think of using United States taxpayer dollars to buy the silence of an AG he wants to part ways with

IMG_4971.thumb.webp.0f34370705cb1001dc72ab1f17595fb8.webp

“It’s just purely coincidental that the Heritage think tank wanted to hire her right now for $1 million a year…and God spoke to her in a dream and said to take the job. Stop spreading liberal fake news.“

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, aggie08 said:

Murdoch is going to reach some inconsequential settlement to help "clear Trump's name."  Bank on it. The WSJ is just a play toy to him.

Maybe, maybe not.  He sued everything associated with Murdoch.  Like, what is the purpose of suing Dow Jones?  Or Fox News?

One thing that Trump may have overlooked is Murdoch deciding to unleash Fox News on Trump.  It's one thing for Trump and Company to tell the rubes how the mean media is picking on him again.  It would be something completely different if the Fox opinion shows started treating Trump differently.  

 

 

 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, The Dog said:

Can’t find the article but it seems Trump is about to fire Bondi.

That was the prevailing sentiment last night on MSNBC



×
×
  • Create New...