I agree.

Even if there is relevance to the documents, they need to compare the associated delay of a Master's review with the alternative delay of the appellate process- likely to go to SCOTUS.

IMO, all this judge has done is expose herself as a Trumpanista tool. The DoJ, I have no doubt, will find one or more viable work-arounds to this court-ordered delay and won't bother taking the bait with an appeal (contra Barcr).TBD. — 180 Proof

I prefer not to go there, because it feeds the Trumpian narrative that judge's are either biased for, or against him. The (bad) decision is explainable as incompetence. Even Trump apologists Judge Napalitanoand Bill Barr consider it a bad opinion.

The judge's ruling to so "bad", IMO, it is deliberate (i.e. corrupt), and despite being a spectacular display of "incompetence", puts this 41 year old on a very short list of candidates for SCOTUS by the next GOP POTUS.

The judge's ruling to so "bad", IMO, it is deliberate (i.e. corrupt) — 180 Proof

I certainly hope her judgement was deliberate. It is after a judge's job to, wait for it... deliberate. I don't doubt for a moment that her judgement may have been heavily biased. She's a conservative judge whose nomination had been recommended by the Federalist Society. She can also have been unconsciously biased due to the fact that Trump nominated her. But bias and corruption still are two different things.

Trump and his supporters can’t wait to turn the US into a dictatorship.

Here's the thing: even if she actually did it for corrupt reasons, it's impossible to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, it should be easy to show the judgment is legally flawed.

I have often thought that if you want to know what Trump is up to, look at what he accuses others of.

Geoffrey S. Berman, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York until he was fired by Trump has a new book, "Holding the Line". Some highlights from an advance copy review by the NYT:

The book paints a picture of Justice Department officials motivated by partisan concerns in pursuing investigations or blocking them; in weighing how forthright to be in court filings; and in shopping investigations to other prosecutors’ offices when the Southern District declined to act.

The book contains accounts of how department officials tried to have allusions to Mr. Trump scrubbed from charging papers for Michael D. Cohen, his former personal lawyer, and how the attorney general later tried to have his conviction reversed. It tells of pressure to pursue Mr. Kerry, who had angered Mr. Trump by attempting to preserve the nuclear deal he had negotiated with Iran.

And in September 2018, Mr. Berman writes, two months before the November midterms, a senior department official called Mr. Berman’s deputy, cited the Southern District’s recent prosecutions of two prominent Trump loyalists, and bluntly asserted that the office, which had been investigating Gregory B. Craig, a powerful Democratic lawyer, should charge him — and should do so before Election Day.

“It’s time for you guys to even things out,” the official said, according to Mr. Berman.

“Throughout my tenure as U.S. attorney,” Mr. Berman, 62, writes, “Trump’s Justice Department kept demanding that I use my office to aid them politically, and I kept declining — in ways just tactful enough to keep me from being fired.

Of course. His accusations of investigations into him being politically motivated are him projecting his own corruption.

Eric Trump inadvertently made a similar claim a while back:

Speaking on Fox News, without providing any evidence, Eric Trump said: "I know the White House as well as anyone, I spent a lot of time there, I know the system, this did not happen without Joe Biden's explicit approval. The White House approved of this.

Because Trump directed the FBI, it must be that Biden does it too.

He has repeatedly and without evidence made accusations about election fraud, and now ... he is being investigated for election fraud. He may once again avoid prosecution but some around him will no doubt be convicted.

It tells of pressure to pursue Mr. Kerry, who had angered Mr. Trump by attempting to preserve the nuclear deal he had negotiated with Iran.

This is a good little reminder, despite the breathtaking stupidity of the review. Kerry had a rogue “back-channel” with Iran during the Trump years. The Iranian Foreign Minister admitted that during their meeting he was surprised when Kerry started talking about Israeli military operations against Iranian assets in Syria. This was happening during when the US was moving to withdraw from the shoddy JCPA. Iran has zero diplomatic relations with the US and are adversaries. Kerry did it anyways, and got away with it. Why wouldn’t Berman look into it?

So in real life, I'd ask you to explain the JCPA to me and why it's shoddy and we would be enjoying to see you flounder like a fish on land but since this is the Internet and everybody had google we'll go with the assumption you're just parroting other people's talking points.

Trump is a product of the system. I imagine the US, world's largest economy, as a factory/plant churning out not only planes, cars, microwave ovens, but also people, complete with weltanschauungs best-suited for US society. In short, like @Bitter Crank said in another thread, you get out of the sewer what you put into it (GIGO). Don't blame Trump, people made him what he is! :chin:

U.S. reveals more classified records may be missing in Trump probe

Former U.S. President Donald Trump's team may not have returned all the classified records removed from the White House at the end of his presidency even after an FBI search of his home, U.S. prosecutors warned on Thursday, calling it a potential national security risk that needs investigation.

...

The Justice Department on Thursday suggested there could be more classified records that were removed from the Trump White House that investigators have not yet located. This revelation comes about a week after the Justice Department released a detailed list of property seized from Trump's home which showed the FBI located 48 empty folders labeled as classified and another 42 which indicated they should be returned to a staff secretary or military aide.

Legal experts were perplexed as to why the folders were empty, and it was not clear whether records were missing.

...

"The injunction against using classified records in the criminal investigation could impede efforts to identify the existence of any additional classified records that are not being properly stored - which itself presents the potential for ongoing risk to national security," they added.

These are principles you hold to no one else while everyone else literally copies and pastes another's work.

the breathtaking stupidity of the review. — NOS4A2

Explain how a review of a book you have not read is breathtakingly stupid.

She claims that Kerry’s activities “angered Trump” and his pressure was motivated by “partisan concerns”, and not, say, concerns over national security, shadow diplomacy, treason, undermining allies, and so on.

So no actual opinion on the JCPA then? Why was it shoddy again? We all know the only reason Trump hated it because it was something Obama accomplished.

We got nothing for it. Zero return on investment. Why do you think it is a good accomplishment?

So you haven't actually read it and don't understand why it was agreed. Got it.

I have read it.

Why was it a good deal?

:rofl: Of course you have. Which is why you claim it gave zero return on investment yet did exactly what it was supposed to do for three years.

Imagine being a Trump apologist, having to argue in favor of border walls, climate denial, and the senseless scrapping of successful deals.

:starstruck:

She claims — NOS4A2

Who is "she"? The reviewer, Benjamin Weiser, is not making any claims. He is reviewing a book by Geoffrey S. Berman. It is Berman who made the claim. How does this lead to your conclusion that the review is breathtakingly stupid?

Kerry had a rogue “back-channel” with Iran during the Trump years. — NOS4A2

You turn a rumor into a fact. Trump himself tweeted that what Kerry was doing was:

possibly illegal Shadow Diplomacy

More from the review you did not read:

Mr. Berman says that after an investigation of roughly a year, his office told the Justice Department that it would not prosecute Mr. Kerry.

A short time later, on Sept. 19, 2019, Mr. Berman writes, a senior adviser to the attorney general called to say that Mr. Barr expected to take the Kerry case to another U.S. attorney’s office, this time in Maryland.

That office reached the same conclusion as the Southern District had, Mr. Berman writes, “and the Kerry investigation just quietly died — as it should have.”

Who is "she"? The reviewer, Benjamin Weiser, is not making any claims. He is reviewing a book by Geoffrey S. Berman. It is Berman who made the claim. How does this lead to your conclusion that the review is breathtakingly stupid?

Then quote him.

You turn a rumor into a fact. Trump himself tweeted that what Kerry was doing was:

Kerry himself admitted it. The Iranian foreign minister confirmed it. You’re turning a fact into a rumor.

And what did the US get out of the deal?

Then quote him. — NOS4A2

That is what I did! If you had read the piece you would know that. But you do not even read some of the things you link to, so there is no reasonable expectation that you would read this one.

Kerry himself admitted it. — NOS4A2

What did he say and where did he say it? Or don't you actually know because he didn't actually read more than a headline?

Exactly what it wanted. It sounds like you don't understand the purpose of the agreement. So what do you think the purpose was?

That is what I did! If you had read the piece you would know that. But you do not even read some of the things you link to, so there is no reasonable expectation that you would read this one.

No, you quoted the reviewer. But you claimed it was Berman’s claim. So why won’t you show me Berman’s claim?

What did he say and where did he say it? Or don't you actually know because he didn't actually read more than a headline?

When asked about reports of him meeting the Iranian foreign minister he said “ Yes, I have. That’s accurate”. It was on the Hugh Hewitt radio show.

What did the US get out of the deal? Maybe you can name one thing.

I already did, I said the agreement did exactly what it was supposed to do, which is obvious to anyone having actually read the thing. Your repeated question is just proof your haven't read it.