TRUMPPERS, this is the question...

Damocles said:
Because he wants you to talk about this for some reason? You are just "guessing" there are more documents you want to see.

I said before that I think he should just release whatever he can and ask for judicial approval for the rest. He's on the judicial approval, it appears we may have seen what he could release without it. Just saying "because he wants to release that thing over there" tells you that there is "more in this imaginary stack I picture in my head" doesn't change the poor logic involved in that supposition.
Click to expand...
But you refuse to draw any reasonable conclusions as to why he will not.
 
Jarod said:
But you refuse to draw any reasonable conclusions as to why he will not.
Click to expand...
Yet I have drawn a conclusion, I believe you are reaching desperately because you want this to live longer. You, therefore, just "suggest" that there "must be more" because he wants to release Grand Jury records. Now that is a reach.

I also conclude that I will enjoy this, regardless of how it turns out.
 
Any real lawyer would know this:

Exceptions and Limitations:
  • Sealed Documents:
    Judges can order certain documents or entire case files to be sealed, meaning they are not available to the public.

  • Privacy Concerns:
    Documents containing sensitive information like social security numbers, birthdates, or financial details are often redacted or sealed.

  • Specific Cases:
    Certain types of cases, like adoptions, mental health commitments, and juvenile records, are often private by default.

  • Criminal Cases:
    Documents like unexecuted warrants, pretrial reports, and statements of reasons in judgments may be restricted.

  • Exemptions:
    There are also exemptions to public access based on privacy or potential harm to ongoing investigations or parties involved.

  • Access Restrictions:
    Documents may be temporarily restricted when they are first filed, like unserved claim forms.
Key Principles:
  • Public Interest:
    The public has a fundamental right of access to court records in both civil and criminal cases.

  • Privacy:
    The right of access is not absolute, and privacy concerns are also important to consider.

  • Balancing Act:
    Courts must balance the public's right to access information with the need to protect individual privacy and prevent harm
 
Damocles said:
Yet I have drawn a conclusion, I believe you are reaching desperately because you want this to live longer. You, therefore, just "suggest" that there "must be more" because he wants to release Grand Jury records. Now that is a reach.

I also conclude that I will enjoy this, regardless of how it turns out.
Click to expand...
saying there is NOTHING (despite Epstein being convicted oncee for pedo stuff and knows all bankers and mossad and royals)
also guarantees it will live on.

I guess we all cooperate to do our fair share of this thing called society.

:cheers:
 
Damocles said:
Again, what "entire thing"? You said that (paraphrasing here) because he wants to release this thing, that means you THINK there is more over there... What if there is nothing "over there", Jarod? You have no actual evidence than your own supposition. I, however, have seen the distance the left will go to try to "get tRump", and releasing tidbits from Epstein files isn't even a long walk for that kind of thing. If it existed, we'd have seen it.
Click to expand...
In Damocles rush to defend Trump he again speaks on topics he does not understand.

What is presented to a Grand Jury is a tiny percent of all that is gathered. it is very specific to charging only. Things like the 302's or interviews by police will constitute a major part of what was collected and can be released. There is a lot more to an investigation than the limited material shown to a Grand Jury meant to secure a charging document
 
Damocles said:
Yet I have drawn a conclusion, I believe you are reaching desperately because you want this to live longer. You, therefore, just "suggest" that there "must be more" because he wants to release Grand Jury records. Now that is a reach.

I also conclude that I will enjoy this, regardless of how it turns out.
Click to expand...
I am enjoying it. I like justice, it is my career.


You have constructed a pretend idea that the Grand Jury documents are all there is, and you can not answer the simple question.

If that is true why does TACO, 79, not say so?
 
Why does TACO, 79, not instruct his minions in Congress to bring Maxwell in to testify?
Why does he not instruct Blondi to release everything?
Why limit it to the Grand Jury documents, which require a lengthy court process to release them?
Why not say, I am not in these documents?

If he could fully remove himself from this controversy, I am sure he is self interested enough to do so.
 
Jarod said:
I am enjoying it. I like justice, it is my career.


You have constructed a pretend idea that the Grand Jury documents are all there is, and you can not answer the simple question.

If that is true why does TACO, 79, not say so?
Click to expand...
I have "constructed" nothing. I wait for information. I am almost always in "wait for information" mode when investigations and courts are involved. I too shall enjoy watching. You have constructed a world in which absence of evidence means that there "must be" more evidence. This is your "look at that shiny thing I think is over there!" moment.
 
Jarod said:
Why does TACO, 79, not instruct his minions in Congress to bring Maxwell in to testify?
Why does he not instruct Blondi to release everything?
Why limit it to the Grand Jury documents, which require a lengthy court process to release them?
Why not say, I am not in these documents?

If he could fully remove himself from this controversy, I am sure he is self interested enough to do so.
Click to expand...
Actually, he instructed his Justice Department to do just that. Well, not before congress, admittedly.
 
Damocles said:
I have "constructed" nothing. I wait for information. I am almost always in "wait for information" mode when investigations and courts are involved. I too shall enjoy watching. You have constructed a world in which absence of evidence means that there "must be" more evidence. This is your "look at that shiny thing I think is over there!" moment.
Click to expand...
But it is it not fair to ask why the information is being kept from you?

When someone tries to prevent you from seeing something, is it not far to wonder why?
 
Damocles said:
Actually, he instructed his Justice Department to do just that. Well, not before congress, admittedly.
Click to expand...
He instructed HIS justice department to secretly collect information from her, the department that controls her fait. Why not allow an independent branch, CONGRESS to do this?

Why is he so desperate to control it? Let the chips fall where they may. He has not requested an independent branch to do anything.
 
Jarod said:
But it is it not fair to ask why the information is being kept from you?

When someone tries to prevent you from seeing something, is it not far to wonder why?
Click to expand...
I do not know if the information is being kept from you. It is fair to ask if information is being kept from you, but not to assume that information exists because they are releasing this other information over there... That you (or I) are suspicious is not evidence.
 
Jarod said:
He instructed HIS justice department to secretly collect information from her, the department that controls her fait. Why not allow an independent branch, CONGRESS to do this?

Why is he so desperate to control it? Let the chips fall where they may. He has not requested an independent branch to do anything.
Click to expand...
He cannot stop Congress from doing that, they are a separate branch of government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top