Trump's legal team wants to have Jack Smith held in contempt

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

ABC's thoughts on Chutkans order are irrelevant....

NO.

They're not.

I know I’ll hate myself for asking but…….

Why?

Why would they be?

opinions based on one's feelings are no more valid than anyone else's' opinions based on feelings.

Breitbart.

No need to say more.

At least you admit that Breitbart hurts your feelings.
Acknowledging a problem is the first step to getting help.

a reply to: RazorV66

Do you actually read breitbart?
Really? That just the rights CNN....
Also good luck to Trump idiot team. I'm sure that will work in their favor. Just like everything they do.

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k
a reply to: RazorV66

Do you actually read breitbart?
Really? That just the rights CNN....
Also good luck to Trump idiot team. I'm sure that will work in their favor. Just like everything they do.

Pfft
I’ll read it when someone here posts a link to it for whatever thread is ongoing.
What’s your point?

My point was that Annee’s feelings are hurt by them and she admits that it’s true.
As opposed to the Left’s media bibles, CNN, MSNBC, ABC etc.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

ABC's thoughts on Chutkans order are irrelevant....

NO.

They're not.

I know I’ll hate myself for asking but…….

Why?

Why would they be?

opinions based on one's feelings are no more valid than anyone else's' opinions based on feelings.

Breitbart.

No need to say more.

At least you admit that Breitbart hurts your feelings.
Acknowledging a problem is the first step to getting help.

Your words and your feelings. Not mine.

Breitbart is all about extreme Right Wing slant and Righ Wing "feelz".

You (and others of same mind) never seem to recognize your own Right Wing "feelz".

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

ABC's thoughts on Chutkans order are irrelevant....

NO.

They're not.

I know I’ll hate myself for asking but…….

Why?

Why would they be?

opinions based on one's feelings are no more valid than anyone else's' opinions based on feelings.

Breitbart.

No need to say more.

So because you see "Brietbart", you automatically assume the story is false and you won't bother to research? Well Well ain't that something. Whatabout your "facts"? 😀

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: DBCowboy

I take issue with your post.

Sean resides on the opposite end of said phallus.....

Point taken, I stand corrected.

Sean Hannity also puts Stickum on his Football !

a reply to: DBCowboy

Seans a total dick.

he's a yes man for the highest bidder. never liked the POS myself.

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

ABC's thoughts on Chutkans order are irrelevant....

NO.

They're not.

I know I’ll hate myself for asking but…….

Why?

Why would they be?

opinions based on one's feelings are no more valid than anyone else's' opinions based on feelings.

Breitbart.

No need to say more.

So because you see "Brietbart", you automatically assume the story is false and you won't bother to research? Well Well ain't that something. Whatabout your "facts"? 😀

Research. Coming from you. Now that’s funny.

Not only do I research a source, I research the writer.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

ABC's thoughts on Chutkans order are irrelevant....

NO.

They're not.

I know I’ll hate myself for asking but…….

Why?

Why would they be?

opinions based on one's feelings are no more valid than anyone else's' opinions based on feelings.

Breitbart.

No need to say more.

So because you see "Brietbart", you automatically assume the story is false and you won't bother to research? Well Well ain't that something. Whatabout your "facts"? 😀

Research. Coming from you. Now that’s funny.

Not only do I research a source, I research the writer.

That’s what you think is funny ? You’ve been here forever and I’ve never learned anything from you . Wait , how to not treat kids when they’re growing up . That’s what I’ve learned from you .
Why are you cheering on global socialism everywhere you go ? It’s not left versus right , it’s evil globalist scumbags versus the rest of the free planet . We all know what side you’re on .
Coming from you , everything’s a big joke . Funny as hell one . You should stick to brainwashing kids into your freaky weird little existence you have . They’re unable to put up a valid well it together thought about it using critical thinking because their little brains aren’t developed enough . We at ATS , our brains are developed enough . Thanks for being the resident joke around here forever , you and your friends who cry on here all day and try to stifle free thought and the truth should find different things to do .
Your research is worthless. If you can’t use your brain to critically think and weed out the bs then what’s the point of what your doing , I have my own conclusions .

originally posted by: Thenails

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

ABC's thoughts on Chutkans order are irrelevant....

NO.

They're not.

I know I’ll hate myself for asking but…….

Why?

Why would they be?

opinions based on one's feelings are no more valid than anyone else's' opinions based on feelings.

Breitbart.

No need to say more.

So because you see "Brietbart", you automatically assume the story is false and you won't bother to research? Well Well ain't that something. Whatabout your "facts"? 😀

Research. Coming from you. Now that’s funny.

Not only do I research a source, I research the writer.

That’s what you think is funny ? You’ve been here forever and I’ve never learned anything from you . Wait , how to not treat kids when they’re growing up . That’s what I’ve learned from you .
Why are you cheering on global socialism everywhere you go ? It’s not left versus right , it’s evil globalist scumbags versus the rest of the free planet . We all know what side you’re on .
Coming from you , everything’s a big joke . Funny as hell one . You should stick to brainwashing kids into your freaky weird little existence you have . They’re unable to put up a valid well it together thought about it using critical thinking because their little brains aren’t developed enough . We at ATS , our brains are developed enough . Thanks for being the resident joke around here forever , you and your friends who cry on here all day and try to stifle free thought and the truth should find different things to do .
Your research is worthless. If you can’t use your brain to critically think and weed out the bs then what’s the point of what your doing , I have my own conclusions .

Rolls ball in your direction.

Perhaps you should go after it.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

ABC's thoughts on Chutkans order are irrelevant....

NO.

They're not.

I know I’ll hate myself for asking but…….

Why?

Why would they be?

opinions based on one's feelings are no more valid than anyone else's' opinions based on feelings.

Breitbart.

No need to say more.

So because you see "Brietbart", you automatically assume the story is false and you won't bother to research? Well Well ain't that something. Whatabout your "facts"? 😀

Research. Coming from you. Now that’s funny.

Not only do I research a source, I research the writer.

That’s BS.

If you had the ability to use logic you wouldn't be a commie POS.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

ABC's thoughts on Chutkans order are irrelevant....

NO.

They're not.

I know I’ll hate myself for asking but…….

Why?

Why would they be?

opinions based on one's feelings are no more valid than anyone else's' opinions based on feelings.

Breitbart.

No need to say more.

So because you see "Brietbart", you automatically assume the story is false and you won't bother to research? Well Well ain't that something. Whatabout your "facts"? 😀

Research. Coming from you. Now that’s funny.

Not only do I research a source, I research the writer.

But you never publish your findings, just your twisty insults and wild binge claims. 😃

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

ABC's thoughts on Chutkans order are irrelevant....

NO.

They're not.

I know I’ll hate myself for asking but…….

Why?

Why would they be?

opinions based on one's feelings are no more valid than anyone else's' opinions based on feelings.

Breitbart.

No need to say more.

So because you see "Brietbart", you automatically assume the story is false and you won't bother to research? Well Well ain't that something. Whatabout your "facts"? 😀

Research. Coming from you. Now that’s funny.

Not only do I research a source, I research the writer.

But you never publish your findings, just your twisty insults and wild binge claims. 😃

"Speak what you know."

Depends on the subject.

Unlike many here -- who think they know what they're talking about -- I am not an armchair expert on law or politics.

But, Please! Deny that you make quick quips.

Chutkan has ruled that Smith did not violate the stay and has denied Trump's motion to hold him in contempt.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Want to add what she actually thinks?

Link< br />

Chutkan, however, said in her opinion and order Thursday that she agrees with Trump that Smith’s filings place a burden on him that is against the spirit of her stay order. Chutkan has ordered that both parties be required to seek her permission before filing additional pre-trial motions while the stay order remains in effect.

Chutkan's opinion Thursday noted that even after she stayed the case on Dec. 13, Smith's office produced additional discovery and a draft exhibit list to Trump's legal team as well as a motion seeking to exclude certain evidence and arguments from any trial in the case.

She agreed with Trump that Smith was wrong but no penalty. BS.

a reply to: matafuchs

The Stay Order did not clearly and unambiguously prohibit the Government actions to
which Defendant objects. Start with its operative sentence, which stayed “the deadlines and
proceedings scheduled by its Pretrial Order, as amended.” Stay Order at 2. The Pretrial Order
set specific dates for certain proceedings (such as the trial, set for March 4, 2024) and imposed
deadlines for other filings (such as motions in limine, due December 27, 2023). ECF No. 39.
Before the Stay Order, the parties were required to attend those proceedings and submit filings
on the designated dates. By holding those dates in abeyance, the Stay Order lifted those
requirements—reflecting the court’s conclusion that Defendant should not “stand trial or face the
other burdens of litigation, such as discovery obligations” during the pendency of his appeal.
Stay Order at 2 (cleaned up). But staying the deadline for a filing is not the same thing as
affirmatively prohibiting it. The basic function of a deadline is not to authorize a filing, but to
time-limit it; correspondingly, the lifting of a deadline removes that time limit but does not
necessarily bar the filing. On its own terms, then, the Stay Order’s key operative sentence did
not clearly bar the Government from voluntary rather than obligatory compliance with the
Pretrial Order’s now-stayed deadlines.

Source

a reply to: Threadbarer

Yes. Trump filed a motion.

I read it...to me she is attempting to cover Smiths ass. She has decided that it is not an undue burden.

Stay Order did not unambiguously forbid the Government’s actions

I can understand them not being held in contempt but they were told NOT to file anything.

a reply to: matafuchs

But staying the deadline for a filing is not the same thing as
affirmatively prohibiting it. The basic function of a deadline is not to authorize a filing, but to
time-limit it; correspondingly, the lifting of a deadline removes that time limit but does not
necessarily bar the filing. On its own terms, then, the Stay Order’s key operative sentence did
not clearly bar the Government from voluntary rather than obligatory compliance with the
Pretrial Order’s now-stayed deadlines

I think the judge makes it pretty clear there was nothing in her order that prohibited them from filing anything.

a reply to: Threadbarer

The judge is clarifying because Smith screwed up. Do you really think if it was the other way around she would give Trumps lawyers a pass? No way.

In fact, it shows she made a mistake by not clearly defining her statement.

The Stay Order did not clearly and unambiguously prohibit the Government actions to
which Defendant objects.

Ass covering legal talk...and you know it.