Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr
From comments I've seen from American lawyers, the issue is that there is no clear legal basis for her ruling, not that it's specifically in favour of Trump.
|
She’s made a clear legal basis, appointed a Special master to oversee documents seized, while temporarily halting DoJ investigation on this matter. She has the power to do that and I think it is right and proper that an independent assessor checks stuff appropriately, Trump claims his most recent medical records were seized, DoJ has no right to that information, nor do the public. It’s right and proper that this gets done but again, because it’s Trump, all rights to a fair case, get waived and armchair judges and jurors want to instantly insist his guilt.
---------- Post added at 13:23 ---------- Previous post was at 13:18 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
It's the same with Trump fans on the right when judges rule against him.
Anyway everyone should just less the process play out. The Justice Department can appeal higher up if the problem is really with the Judge as some claim or just leave it to the 3rd party. If it's true that there was information about a foreign country's nuclear weapons program in those documents then no way is a 3rd party going to deem that valid for personal use.
|
I said similar, but inverted. You liberals foamed at the mouth when Judges ruled against Trump, but when it’s in his favour, background of Judge is called in to question.
Equally, I’m not a Trump fan, I’m a fan of a fair and balanced legal system, that treats people the same. Surely this is a true liberal way.