• Passerby6497@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Trump’s lawyers opposed Wednesday’s lengthy filing – which they described as “tantamount to a premature and improper Special Counsel report” – and argued that public release of the allegations would improperly influence the election and violate Department of Justice policies. Judge Chutkan – who has long stated that the election does not play a factor in her decision making – ordered the filing be publicly released Wednesday.

    HOW IS IT NOT ELECTION INTERFERENCE TO NOT RELEASE IT??

    Seriously, not releasing it would hide necessary information that voters should be given to make an informed decision.

    Also, that dumb fuck is the reason it got pushed this close to the election, so it serves him right.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Naw. Gitmo has too much scrutiny. and it’s a bit old. They got other blacksites with way more privacy and way more interesting… “activities”.

      • PoopDelivery@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        People like trump don’t get sent to places like that, and it’s fucked up that we have torture complexes and people are cool with that.

    • JoJo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s very close to the election, but this is a good filing wrt what is actually happening here, shame that it’ll likely only matter when Harris gets in office, since trump can just throw it out if he becomes president, and it’ll not matter anymore then.

    • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Thank you very much for the link. Some of this is really good reading. I liked this bit.

      (Elsewhere in the filing, P26 is described as the Georgia Attorney General and P4 as Senior Campaign Advisor)

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    In addition to outlining the instances when Trump was directly corrected about his allegations of voter fraud, the filing said Trump privately called allegations of voter fraud made by his lawyer Sidney Powell as “crazy” – despite employing similar arguments to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, prosecutors allege.

    Not that any of this evidence will matter. A third of our country has poisoned brains and won’t even address it.

  • kmartburrito@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Even the factual proffer section on page 3 and 4 is insane, and should and would be immediately disqualifying in any other universe

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Is this the one that Trump wanted to be massively redacted? And Jack Smith said “We should only redact the names of witnesses and other persons not already identified”?

    • kmartburrito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Actually, here’s the awesome and ironic part - Jack Smith wanted this to all be under seal, Judge Chutkan disagreed and took Donald’s older request to have the previous filings only redacted for sensitive info, like witness names, and had the rest be publicly available.

      Of course now Donald didn’t want this one to be public, lol. Can’t have it both ways, Diaper Don.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        No, Smith’s desire was only to redact names of persons in this oversized filing, nothing else.

        • kmartburrito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          You’re not quite correct, It’s actually much more nuanced than that. I’ll reply as soon as I’m off work and can put the right amount of effort into it.

          • Nougat@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            You’re talking about what happened a year ago. I’m talking about what happened in the last few weeks. Smith wanted only to redact the names of people or organizations that weren’t previously identified for this motion.

            • kmartburrito@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              What you’re talking about is irrelevant, because the judge will operate in a manner that is consistent with her original ruling, and that insulates her from pushback or criticism. What happened a year ago is directly relevant here because it set the outcome.