I heard an interesting point, Maxwell was convicted of trafficking. No one was ever convicted, or even charged, with the other end of the trafficking, the receiving.
As I said, Epstein arranging the meet-up is an Epstein crime and we not only know about the meet, we also know the name of the “John”. All fair game. What happened later is not imputed to Epstein and is not covered by the statute.
The language couldn't be clearer. It is manifestly apparent that the statute applies to this woman's allegations, the investigation and the related documents. The burden is on Justice to justify the withholding and they haven't satisfied that. And they sure as hell haven't made the argument you're making.
Your tortuous interpretation of the statute is nonsensical and, at this point, it appears you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I'm out.
I read it and agree with you though IANAL. Twisted thinking to defend President Trump is absolutely a MAGA thing. It's a phenomenon that will be studied by graduate students and doctoral candidates for their theses and dissertations for years to come.
My friend COH is not the same person he was before Trump. No doubt in my mind about that.
The statute in a number of different ways and places specifically mentions material about Epstein crimes and two charges. It does not cover other criminal allegations not involving Epstein.
Good grief
The title of the operative section is
SEC. 2. RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
The allegations against Trump has zero, zip, nada, to do with convicting Epstein of any charge. It’s not related to an Epstein crime. No judge would allow a jury to hear it. None of that is covered by the plain language of the statute.
This has noting to do with MAGA or your obsession with it.
You're so obviously wrong, I just don't understand you any longer. I've listened to legal scholars talk about this for several hours and you're once again an outlier. Obviously, if he met this alleged victim via Epstein it's connected to Epstein criminally. Also, why do you want to suppress information about President Trump? I'm thinking it's all about MAGA rule number 1.Good grief
The title of the operative section is
SEC. 2. RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
The allegations against Trump has zero, zip, nada, to do with convicting Epstein of any charge. It’s not related to an Epstein crime. No judge would allow a jury to hear it. None of that is covered by the plain language of the statute.
This has noting to do with MAGA or your obsession with it.
@shooter. What kind of recumbent do you have? I’m looking at a Sun Seeker X3 AX.
I have a Catrike 559. Catrikes are very nimble and well built, a step up from Sun. They are one of, if not the only, the USA built recumbent trike. Aluminum lightweight frame, for a trike.
They are very different in rider position, by model. You mentioned being concerned about getting in and out... try the Catrike Villager or Catrike Dumont. The Dumont has full suspension and is the most expensive. Since I have lost weight I ride two wheeled recumbents more often than my trike, as they are faster, but my 559 is still a fun ride. Kind of low seat position relative to Dumont and Villager though.
ICE trikes and Greenspeed trikes are good too. A cheaper decent trike is the Titan brand. Check Marketplace on Facebook
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Ride the Sun trike though. I have not ridden one and it's all about the fit and rider position
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
You're so obviously wrong, I just don't understand you any longer. I've listened to legal scholars talk about this for several hours and you're once again an outlier. Obviously, if he met this alleged victim via Epstein it's connected to Epstein criminally. Also, why do you want to suppress information about President Trump? I'm thinking it's all about MAGA rule number 1.Good grief
The title of the operative section is
SEC. 2. RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
The allegations against Trump has zero, zip, nada, to do with convicting Epstein of any charge. It’s not related to an Epstein crime. No judge would allow a jury to hear it. None of that is covered by the plain language of the statute.
This has noting to do with MAGA or your obsession with it.
The one burning question every poster on this board wants answered is without a doubt, do you still understand COH??? Everyone is dying to know!!!🤣🤣🤣
You're so obviously wrong, I just don't understand you any longer. I've listened to legal scholars talk about this for several hours and you're once again an outlier. Obviously, if he met this alleged victim via Epstein it's connected to Epstein criminally. Also, why do you want to suppress information about President Trump? I'm thinking it's all about MAGA rule number 1.Good grief
The title of the operative section is
SEC. 2. RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
The allegations against Trump has zero, zip, nada, to do with convicting Epstein of any charge. It’s not related to an Epstein crime. No judge would allow a jury to hear it. None of that is covered by the plain language of the statute.
This has noting to do with MAGA or your obsession with it.
He's not just wrong. He's fundamentally misrepresenting how to read basic statutory text. Best to just ignore this exchange and move on.
fundamentally misrepresenting how to read basic statutory text.
Okay. Give us a lesson in how to read a statute.
BTW, if Congress had demanded release of criminal accusations of people never tried, or even charged, the courts wouldn’t enforce it.
Obviously, if he met this alleged victim via Epstein it's connected to Epstein criminally.
Yep. That information has been released.
Also, why do you want to suppress information about President Trump?
Well, you finally admit it. You really think this is about Trump. No, this is about the law.
You're so obviously wrong, I just don't understand you any longer. I've listened to legal scholars talk about this for several hours and you're once again an outlier. Obviously, if he met this alleged victim via Epstein it's connected to Epstein criminally. Also, why do you want to suppress information about President Trump? I'm thinking it's all about MAGA rule number 1.Good grief
The title of the operative section is
SEC. 2. RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN.
The allegations against Trump has zero, zip, nada, to do with convicting Epstein of any charge. It’s not related to an Epstein crime. No judge would allow a jury to hear it. None of that is covered by the plain language of the statute.
This has noting to do with MAGA or your obsession with it.
Sorry, allow me to jump back in one more time to highlight just how ridiculous this debate is for those who might not gather why some of us are so dismissive. Explanation is deserved.
The law requires that all documents, communications, etc. that fall under the scope be released. You cannot satisfy that statutory demand with partial performance. All means all. CO.H is cynically arguing - and he has to know better - that partial performance is enough. But by the very plain English language of the text, it isn't. You can't "satisfy" the language of, say, section 2(a)(4) (or any other) simply by releasing enough to establish that the language applies. You must release all documents that the language applies to. Not some.
DOJ is running afoul of the law if they are withholding any documents, records, communications, or investigatory materials that fall within any of those subsections. Releasing only some of them does not satisfy the statutory command. Period. Releasing enough to establish that Trump (or anyone else within the scope) is related at all to the Epstein prosecution isn't enough. They must release all information that mentions Trump (or anyone, etc.) in relation to etc., etc. All.
fundamentally misrepresenting how to read basic statutory text.
Okay. Give us a lesson in how to read a statute.
BTW, if Congress had demanded release of criminal accusations of people never tried, or even charged, the courts wouldn’t enforce it.
See my post directly above; I just did.
I've listened to legal scholars talk about this for several hours and you're once again an outlier
In case it isn’t already clear, I’m not to impressed with lawyers who pontificate in media without ever being challenged by opposing counsel or judges. Those lawyers are observers, not practitioners. They don’t know how to make a convincing argument.