Below is my column in the Hill on the upcoming filing of the Justice Department on proposed redactions to the affidavit that led to the Mar-a-Lago raid. It will be the fifth chance for Attorney General Merrick Garland to take a modest step to assure concerned citizens over the basis or motivation for the raid.
Here is the column:
In a three-minute press conference following the FBI raid on Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, Attorney General Merrick Garland cut a defiant figure, condemning critics of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI: “I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked.” He then left the stage without taking questions or answering that criticism.
It was a signature moment for Garland, who often responds to controversies with belated, rote remarks. His brief comments had all of the substance of a Hallmark card that read, “Trust us, we’re the government.” Yet trust has to be earned, not simply demanded.
This coming week, Garland has another opportunity to show leadership and reassure the public by ordering substantive disclosures in the proposed redacted affidavit justifying the raid. If not, this will be the fifth missed opportunity to demonstrate that the DOJ deserves the public’s trust.
The indignation expressed by Garland in his public remarks seemed to ignore legitimate concerns over the DOJ’s motivations and record in past Trump-related investigations. Both the FBI and DOJ have documented histories of false court statements and bias against Trump, leading to the collapse of the Russia-collusion allegations and the firing of high-ranking officials.
Garland was aware of that history and the troubling context when he ordered the unprecedented raid on the home of a former president and the expected 2024 political opponent of President Biden. He may be justified in ordering it, but he cannot simply dismiss critics as unhinged extremists.
It is equally troubling that, at every earlier opportunity to make a modest step to assure such citizens, Garland has failed:
It is unclear why Garland opted for a search warrant rather than a second subpoena like one used in June to seize boxes of documents from Mar-a-Lago. Trump’s team claims to have communications from the FBI reflecting that they cooperated with the search, then followed the FBI’s request to reinforce security on a storage room. It is unclear what communications occurred after the June meeting — or, if remaining documents were a concern, why the DOJ did not immediately issue a second subpoena. While the DOJ claimed time was of the essence to retrieve national security material, Garland reportedly waited weeks before signing off on the search warrant application and the FBI waited a weekend to execute the search. There was plenty of time to seek a voluntary surrender or consensual search.
The second opportunity occurred when the DOJ sought the warrant. While knowing that every aspect of the search would be scrutinized, it adopted language so broad that it was virtually the legal version of Captain Jack Sparrow’s “Take what you can … Give nothing back.” It allowed the seizure of any box containing any document with any classification of any kind — and all boxes stored with that box; it allowed the seizure of any writing from Trump’s presidency. If Garland wanted to assure Americans of an apolitical motive, he could have crafted that warrant more narrowly. Instead, the government scooped up everything, from passports to attorney-client material.
Garland’s third opportunity came with the raid itself. Rather than descending on Trump’s home with 30 to 40 officers and a dozen vehicles, this is a search that could have been done by a few inconspicuous agents without risk. They didn’t have to arrive by Uber, but they also didn’t need to arrive like this. Instead, as with other Trump targets from Roger Stone to Paul Manafort and Peter Navarro, the DOJ chose the most heavy-handed, overwhelming-force option.
After the raid, Garland missed his fourth opportunity. It was obvious the raid would ignite a country that is a tinderbox, particularly before a major election. Garland could have issued a statement reassuring the public and immediately secured the documents, asking for an independent special master or federal magistrate to sort out any material beyond the warrant’s scope, including attorney-client material. That would have ended speculation about a pretextual search aimed at finding incriminating evidence of other crimes, including material related to the Jan. 6 riot. Garland not only didn’t take such a precaution but reportedly refused Trump’s request for such an appointment. Garland then compounded the problem by refusing to address basic concerns in his brief presser, including the allegation of a pretextual search.
Garland now has a fifth opportunity in responding to a magistrate’s order to recommend parts of the affidavit for public release. Garland initially refused to release the affidavit, then implausibly asserted that nothing in it could be released in the interests of national security. Most affidavits have sections that can be released without damaging an investigation or compromising witnesses, including information already known to the target. In this case, Garland could, at a minimum, release the account of the communications with the Trump team. It may be discomforting for DOJ officials accustomed to total control over such information, but it would reassure the public in a growing political crisis.
Obviously, after insisting no disclosures could be made, it is now doubly difficult for Garland to reverse himself. Such a bold move would be out of character for Garland, who often appears more of a passenger than the driver of his own department. But he needs now to be proactive rather than reactive to this controversy — by overruling those in the DOJ who pushed for the raid and demanded a total bar on disclosures of the affidavit.
What is clear is that Garland’s “trust us” mantra has done little to assuage concerns. Indeed, that seems almost comical to many people, given the Crossfire Hurricane debacle and the fact that this investigation is being handled by the same section.
Transparency on the search may push some at the DOJ outside of their comfort zone, but the raid has already pushed many on both sides of the political spectrum to the brink. One MSNBC host declared that the “civil war is here” while, in a shocking Rasmussen poll, 46 percent of Americans now view the FBI unfavorably and 53 percent believe it is being misused by the Biden administration. Even assuming that Rasmussen trends conservative, those numbers likely reflect the view of many of the more than 74 million people who voted for Trump in 2020.
So far, Garland has done little to earn the trust of almost half of the country. In this and other controversies, he has demanded respect but refused to take even modest measures to justify it.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
493 thoughts on “How Merrick Garland Missed Four Chances to Earn the Public Trust on Mar-a-Lago”
Prof Turley, are not we shredding the Constitution just to get one man? Prof Turley did not communist countries also have at one time “constitutions” too? The waiving of Trump’s Executive Privileges by Biden caused a fmr US Atty from CT yesterday on WTIC radio to call it “an outrageous act!”
I’m convinced that the raid has nothing to do with collecting evidence. It was done intentionally in order to rile up republicans so they might call an emergency just in time for the election and turn on the same mail in voting rules as they did during Covid. They always forget though that republicans don’t usually want to burn down the city in order to make a point so it isn’t working per the plan.
There are so many things that can get added.
Mostly, in cases you neither heard about nor cared about. Trump got limousine treatment — deference beyond reason. If it had been anyone else, the documents would have been grabbed over a year ago.
speaking of limousine treatment and deference….
It will be instructive to see how DNC / Big Tech / Legacy Media maneuver to deplatform the upcoming movie: My Son Hunter release date Sept 7
They don’t have to air libelous Russian crap.
Really? Obama still has documents.
No, They are under control of the Archives.
If it had been anyone else – this never would have happened at all.
There is no question at all that Clinton violated the espionage act.
There was an investigation.
There was lying under oath.
There was no cooperation.
In fact Clinton;s own attorney’s – ones thatr were themselves atleast subjects and therefore conflicted,
were the ones who sifted through her emails to find and return classified material.
There was no special master – Clinton’s surrogates did it.
Despitelying and concealing – there were no “raids”, no warrants.
And they outcome ? Comey wagging his finger at her.
That is the limosine treatment – for a REAL crime.
You do not have a credible allegation of a crime yet.
Did Trump scale the fence at the whitehouse to take these documents on Jan 21, 2021 ?
What ACT violated the law ?
“You do not have a credible allegation of a crime yet.”
ROFL. Not only is there credible allegation, but trump and his team have admitted to it.
Typical of the left – You assume you are right – you never bother to actually make an argument.
To present evidence
Trump has absolutely admitted to many things – none of which are crimes. ‘
As those on the left have done for Years – decades even.
What is and is not a crime is determined by YOUR politics – not by law, or facts, or the constitution.
All of those. All of what makes up the rule of law, is irrelevant, for you are about the rule of man.
You say something is a crime – therefore it must be – until someone on the left gets caught doing the same or worse – then magically it is not – except when someone you oppose does it – then it is again.
For YOU all crime – is merely opposing you.
Anyone who disagree’s is a hateful, hating hater, a racist, xenophobic, trans phobic, mysoginyst.
It is far easier to claim to just lob naked assertions – rather than to have to make and actual credible argument.
Cite a specific crime.
Then provide the evidence that you have for each and every element of that crime.
If you can not do that – you are not credible.
Hillary Clinton did not violate the Espionage Act. She didn’t have any documents marked “classified” on her server (a few were upclassed later). But you believe damn near anything troweled out in the RW blogosphere.
At worst, she may have mishandled a stray document or two. If that had happened to Major Clinton, she would have been discharged from the service, and that is about it. But you want to hang Hillary because she IS Hillary.
I don’t carry a brief for the Wicked Witch of the West Wing. I’ve been after her since her first cattle-futures bribe. But this was a nothing-burger.
Trump had classified documents at his home and reportedly, that included the really sensitive stuff. He had no reason to have it. His attorneys have admitted that he went through the documents personally, which is conclusive wrt intent. Under the Espionage Act, if you refuse to return covered documents when asked, it is a crime.
And why DID he have those documents, anyway???
The warrant issued because there was probable cause to believe that there was evidence of a crime at the premises. And judging from the receipt, there was. But you would give him a pass if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue.
Comey’s press conference at the time back then absolutely disagrees with your alternate reality. But its obvious you are one way partisan to the left. That’s expected. Cankles McFraud had way way more than classified on her bathroom closet server , and to note even comrade comey admitted that the likelihood of it having been compromised by foreign agents was 100%. She is a crooked member in good standing with the deep state and demorat party… especially after destroying phones and sim cards ….a friend of the apparatchik party pass.
I’m about facts, not third-hand impressions.
Have you a clue ?
Ignoring the fact that Trump had the authority to declassify anything.
The scale of the differences is enormous.
Clinton was dealing with somewhere between infinitely more classified documents and one order of magnitude more.
She transmitted those over the internet nearly always to people who did not have clearances.
And she left them available on the internet where hackers and foreign intelligence services could get at them.
Trump has somewhere between zero and 1/10th as many “classified” documents – that increasingly appear to be the collusion delusion documents that he declassified in 2018, 2019 and 2021. These documents were on paper in boxes behind double locks.
Todate there is no evidence anyone without clearance was given access – much less the entire hacker world, and all foreign powers freindly and hostile.
If the standard for measuring credibility is how often has a source been right – or wrong.
Then Alex Jones has more credibility than NYT or WaPo.
That should cause you to seriously reconsider who you trust.
Alex Jones is not a reliable source.
But the entire left Wing media is far worse.
“There is no question at all that Clinton violated the espionage act”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793. Have at it, “counselor.” “Relating to the national defense” is your first obstacle. You’re convicting her because she is Hillary.
“Relating to the national defense” is your first obstacle.
Correct – that works BOTH ways.
Documents regarding the Collusion Delusion fraud – do not relate to the national defense.
Even if the investigation was not predicated on a hoax, an investigation that did not find anything defense related can not have documents relating to the national defence.
As to Clinton – documents related to the War on Terror, to the mideast Drone targeting clearly are related to national defense.
These were TS/Code word and more classified than TS/SCI. And Clinton shared them with people without clearances.
Clinton is simple – she is crooked, she has been forever, She is the original source for the Birther stuff. Every political scandal of my life has her fingers in it including watergate – she is the source of multiple hoaxes related to the collusion delusion.
Is she guilty of every allegation made of her – probably not. But any normal person would have been convicted of violating 18 US 793(f) in 2015 based on what they had. There are so many differences between that and what you are dealing with Trump.
Starting with Clinton had no legitimate means to have posession of Classifed documents. Sec. States may not take classified documents home – atleast not on their own authority. Presidents do so every day. Their home is the seat of executive power.
There are 10,000 ways classified material could have gotten to MAL legitimately there are ZERO ways it could get to Clinton’s bathroom server.
Next, Clinton’s documents were on mail servers, in emails sent to other people over the internet – illegal, many of whom were not allowed to receive them – illegal, which were available for foreign hackers to access – illegal.
Trump’s were on paper double locked up, with access limited to those with clearance.
Clinton had no authority to classify or declassify. She could not declassify something to remove it from the SCIF.
Trump could, and in fact has defacto classification authority.
Anything Clinton had that was marked classified – she must prove is declassified. Anything unmarked Clinton had that is classified – she must prove did not come from the SCIF or classified sources.
Conversely with Trump anything marked classifed the government must proves was NOT declassified.
Aside from Trump’s standing order – which is probably impossible to disprove, Trump declassified tens of thousands of documents during his presidency – By explicit order as reported in the media on multiple occasions, including a blanket declassification of everything related to the collusion. by Executive order on Jan 19, 2021. Marked or unmarked those are all declassified.
Finally, Trump retains an all access security clearance – like all ex-presidents.
To get anywhere with Trump the government has the high burdern of proving
The documents actually are classified.
Being marked is not sufficient.
he obtained the documents illegally, or he did something illegally with them.
We do not even have allegations of any of this.
Maybe you missed the same situation with Obama that’s still not been fixed. I missed that raid on his home.
Funny, that. So I guess it turns out that if a president leaving office complies with the PRA and the archives, DOJ finds no need to obtain a search warrant for your house. How crazy!!
There isn’t one. Every Obama document is under proper control.
This proves you speak without knowledge. You can’t possibly know whether or not your statement is correct.
You need a course in logic along with data collection.
There are many other examples of DOJ/FBI malfeasance or negligence, or incompetence.
There is good reason not to trust DOJ/FBI.
There is good reason – that has nothing at all to do with partisanship
AND there is good reason to beleive that they are politically corrupt.
Wray and Barr were brought in to clean up FBI and DOJ and to make them trustworthy.
They failed. My fundimental conflict with Barr is that whatever good he might have done. Whatever his intentions were,
the moment he left DOJ went to h311.
I did not expect alot from Merrit Garland – but I did expect that he would not be another Eric Holder.
I did expect that he had some interest in how history might remember him.
I expected that he MIGHT be governed as AG by leaving the impression that he was worthy of being appointed to the Supreme Court. He is a disasterous failure.
Today we learned that the Whitehouse has not only known about this from the start, that they have not only been heavily involved in this from the start, but that they have Driven this from the start. That before the FBI/DOJ got involved that the WH and NARA were conspiring to play games with Trump.
“Today we learned that the Whitehouse has not only known about this from the start . . .”
The details of that set up are here:
“Biden White House facilitated DOJ’s criminal probe against Trump”
“Long before it professed no prior knowledge of the raid on Donald Trump’s estate, the Biden White House worked directly with the Justice Department and National Archives to instigate the criminal probe into alleged mishandling of documents . . .”
Just the unreliable RW scandal sheets, Sam? Long on opinion, short on facts or relevance.
It is the duty of the federal government to protect our national secrets. Trump is alleged to have had above-top-secret documents, which even he can’t declassify by virtue of statutory law. Why did he need them???
To sell them. Espionage is the only answer that makes sense.
“. . . short on facts . . .”
Except, of course, for all of the documentary evidence in that article.
“To sell them.”
Remind me, again, which is the party of conspiracy theories?
“It is the duty of the federal government to protect our national secrets.”
It is *not* the duty of the federal government to create political “criminals” — unless the ruling party is run by petty tyrants.
Ignoring the fact that John Solomon is a probable witness in the case who has a long and checkered history of professional dishonesty, John Solomon leaves behind lasting damage at the Hill, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/15/john-solomon-leaves-behind-lasting-damage-hill/, who was even fired by Fox, there is enough in that article to support a criminal prosecution on espionage grounds.
“In its initial review of materials within those boxes, NARA identified items marked as classified national security information, up to the level of Top Secret and including Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Program materials.” Yet, he was keeping that shit at the poolhouse in Mar-a-Lago? If that shit gets into the wrong hands, people die.
Explain it to me, Counselor: What POSSIBLE reason could he have for possessing those records? The whimsical post hoc claim that everything he touched was suddenly declassified has been debunked by everyone who had a reason to know. Absent documentation and any evidence of implementation, the claim appears contrived. And in the case of SCI material, many classes of it cannot be declassed by POTUS sua sponte.
Christina Bobb signed a statement that was later proven to be false. There is your crime, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and the documents they found are evidence of that crime. Ergo, the warrant was a proper one.
Trump is a walking RICO charge. Given his history of obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence — even using classified documents as condiments for his hamberders — he has long ago worn out the benefit of the doubt.
How in the world do you get Solomon as a witness ?
Reporting does not make you a witness.
As to Solomon’s credibility – please identify a SINGLE thing he has been “dishonest” about ?
Before you slander one of the best journalists in the country – you should know what you are talking about.
Asked and answered. He was fired for misconduct.
Cluelessly wrong as always.
What I asked you doe was an actual example of something Solomon has been wrong about.
Not your subjective appraisal of why news media cancel and renew contracts with outside sources.
I would note that Solomon is getting enormous airtime over this
BECAUSE he is knowledgeable, accurate and typically gets information – real information not rumours and gossip, before anyone else.
You have not answered at all.
Given that your handle suggests that you know something about law – and therefore logic,
You should know that ad hominem is not argument.
Slandering Solomon is not evidence.
I asked for evidence of dishonestly by solomon.
I will settle for evidence of error.
You have provided neither.
Solomon was named as one of Trump’s liaisons to the NA. That makes him a witness.
All that does is mean that he will get access to these documents at the NA
For someone who calls themselve “lawdog” you are ignorant of law.
Is there EVIDENCE that Solomon SAW or HEARD directly evidence of a crime ?
Not your random speculation.
You are not a witness because some left wing nut THINKS you might be,
Trump’s attorney’s have sworn under oath there was nothing classified at MAL.
NARA press releases are NOT affadavits or testimony.
Todate there is absolutely no evidence that Classified documents were at MAL
Even you are openly admitting that Patel was going to publish documents Trump had declassified.
A document is classified because of its content – usually classified documents are marked.
A classified mark creates an assumption that a document is classified.
But Markings do NOT superceed the directives o the president.
When the president says X is declassified – it is declassified regardless of content, and regardless of how marked.
Same rules – all presidents.
Whether there was such a directive is a question of fact, and Trump’s bald post hoc assertion that (1) there was one and (2) it applied to those documents carries no weight. Obama signed an EO updating declassing procedures, and it was binding on Trump unless and until he issued an EO extinguishing them.
The Government will present 20 Trump aides, including Bolton and Pompeo, who will testify that there was no such order. Kash Patel has potential criminal liability, and his testimony would be discounted accordingly.
For purposes of the warrant, there was probable cause, even if the only person in DOJ’s sights is Christina Bobb. I don’t care beyond that.
“Whether there was such a directive is a question of fact”
“and Trump’s bald post hoc assertion that (1) there was one and (2) it applied to those documents carries no weight.”
Incorrect – in the absence of evidence to the contrary it is the ONLY evidence.
If you and I both have guns, both guns are fired, there are no other witness and I shoot you dead, and I claim self defense,
that is the end of the case. No witnesses, no other evidence. No actual facts inconsistent with my claim – then give the what I say is all the evidence there is.
“Obama signed an EO updating declassing procedures, and it was binding on Trump unless and until he issued an EO extinguishing them. evidence. ”
Incorrect and irrelevant. An EO is not binding on the current or successor presidents.
It is binding on the rest of the executive branch until rescinded or replaced.
Trump declassified the entire Collusion Delusion investigation – both by public orders in 2018 and 2019 and by EO on Jan. 19, 2021.
Irelevant because even if the Obama EO was binding on Trump – that EO explicity removed the president (and in many cases the VP) from complying (it had to otherwise the EO would be unconstitutional).
“The Government will present 20 Trump aides, including Bolton and Pompeo, who will testify that there was no such order.”
If that were true – which I highly doubt, they still would not get to testify. Just as the court would not allow 50 people to testify that they did not hear you draw first in the hypothetical I provided – unless they were actually present at the time.
“Kash Patel has potential criminal liability, and his testimony would be discounted accordingly.”
False and False. There is no such thing as potential criminal liability.
Either you have evidence that Patel committed a crime – or you do not.
Worse still fixating on Patel is damning for FBI/DOJ/You. Patel was heavily involved in investigating the Collusion Delusion,
He was directly involved in declassifying the DOJ/FBI collusion delusion documents by EO on Jan. 19 2021.
The more you focus on Patel the more you make it appeal this was about the collusion delusion documents.
In which case the actions of Biden the WH, the FBI and DOJ in targeting Trump are now a criminal conspiracy and coverup of the misconduct in the collusion delusion investigation.
The more likely it is that the documents in question have anything to do with the collusion delusion. The deeper the hole you dig for DOJ/FBI/Biden.
Again – if those are the documents in question – the Crime is not Trump, it is FBI/DOJ/WH.
And it is being done out in the open where will all can see.
“For purposes of the warrant, there was probable cause”
Because you say so ?
“even if the only person in DOJ’s sights is Christina Bobb. I don’t care beyond that”
Of course you do, Not a single argument you have made has anything to do with Bobb.
Further, you do not have a crime regarding Bobb, If Trump told her the documents were declassified and Trump was wrong or lying.
Why would Trump possess documents marked classified ?
The TRIVIAL explanation is that he kept a copy of the documents he declassified on Jan. 19, 2021 – because he did not trust DOJ and Biden to release them – which they have not.
But beyond that – All cabinet level officers in the prior administration retain their security clearance after leaving office.
Ex-Presidents specifically retain the same access as the current president – they allone do not have to prove what you just asked – that the need to know, to access a classified document.
Trump can request that DoD provide him with the current nuclear codes, and only the current president could (and likely would) deny that request.
This is not made up Trump rules. This is the rules that were laid out in a Clinton EO more than 3 decades ago, and were affirmed by Bush and later Obama.
Ex-presidents have no need to know requirement. They may request and possess any classified documents they wish. Only the current president can say no.
“Why would Trump possess documents marked classified ?”
Took me awhile to stop laughing at this…, thank you for the entertainment!
Anyone familiar with trump would know he’s a collector of memorabilia and his narcissism would lead to his taking them for that reason alone. But furthermore, knowing also that when trump sees a table full of money he does everything he can to take every last dollar of said money, he’d be thinking monetization all the way with classified documents. And if reports are true of there being a copy of Roger Stqne’s pardon, and info about the ‘French’ leader, well, this fulfils another of trump’s traits. That being, his fashioning himself after his former mentor Roy Cohn and his penchant for collecting dirt on people to be used in future negotiation.
Trump has essentially run a racketeering outfit for decades. At his intelligence briefings he was famous for not caring about the information but also curious whether he could take the briefing hard copy itself afterward. Funny, since the content was often converted into simple diagrams and bullet points because that’s the only way the briefers could hold his attention…
So, seen through the eyes of his character traits, trump is literally the *most likely candidate to walk away with classified material. It’s why people around him got so freaked out about him doing it at the end of his term.
“. . . the only way the briefers could hold his attention.”
As opposed to pumping your Mannequin-in-chief full of meds, so that he can slur through a three-minute speech.
Bob Woodward, in his first trump book, had an interesting account about Pentagon briefers trying to hold trump’s attention. They tried to brief him at the WH for awhile but realized trump would just point at things out the window and continually have aides bring in diet Pepsi as a way to cocktail party up the briefing. So they had to have him come to the Pentagon because they could control the distractions better that way.
Trump has clearly been dosed with ADD drugs for a long time. Somewhere deep down he knew he needed to be punished. That’s why he paid Stormy to spank him with the rolled up magazine.
Trump has been mentally compromised for years.
“Trump has been mentally compromised for years.”
Based on what Trump has accomplished both privately and in public office, one can only assume that this poster is laden with emotional issues. He needs others to be emotionally compromised more than himself.
Memorabilia ? That is going to be your motive ?
Trump snuck back to the Whitehouse after Jan 21, 2021 to gather up classified memorabilia ?
“Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt”
More nonsense like the collusion delusion.
When is it that you are going to grasp that you are entirely clueless about human nature ?
I doubt you understand how YOU think – much less others.
“A table full of money” – so where is this table ?
Do you have the slightest clue how little money there is in espionage with respect to the interest Trump makes in a single day on Billions in assets ?
Regardless, people do not get to be multibillionaires by acting as stupidly as you constantly think Trump does.
Trump has many flaws – Contra the left, stupidity is not one of them.
If you want to see actual stupidity – watch anything Biden says.
Trump got there via inheritance, tax fraud, Russian money laundering, and Fred doing “his” signature deal.
Wow, the Stupidity never stops with the lowlife left. Trumps inheritance was small compared to what he built. What do you have? Very little. Trump followed the tax laws. You probably cheat because you take deductions that don’t exist and don’t have a history of high earrings. Don’t worry. Joe Biden is putting a lot of money into the IRS. The richest are very careful following the laws, but you aren’t. That is why despite what he says, you are the one being targeted because we all know you cheat and don’t have the legal power to legally keep the most money possible.
Anon: “Trumps inheritance was small compared to what he built.”
Half a billion from Daddy and almost as much from Daddy Vladdy, plus his cash cow (a Fred Trump deal). Give me a $2B head start, and I’d be worth $10B. He’s barely worth a billion, and every deal he originated has been a disaster.
Anon: “You probably cheat because you take deductions that don’t exist”
And you are almost certainly a serial boy-buggerer.
The Stupidity of those making these claims:
….Trump never earned a dime. He inherited money and lost it all….
Ask yourself, if he lost it all how did he get it back?
That is one example of the drivel produced by the left. The claims are ridiculous. I don’t care how much money Trump has or how much he inherited. I have seen his work and it stands tall.
What have you done? Nothing. You are jealous of those that do not need a boss to tell them what to do.
Trump was born with a silver spoon, he made a number of mistakes, but his ultimate successes are his own.
There is little of his father legacy in Trump enterprises.
You can not get rich from tax fraud – that is luducrously stupid.
Business Taxes are on profits, You must profit to get taxed.
The russian money laundering claims is ludicrously stupid. Clinton and Biden actually received money – for nonthing, from Russians. Trump sold a small amount of condo’s in FL to Russian Expats,
I would further ask you what Russian money laundering even means ?
The money of Oligarchs in Russia is already protected by their support of Putin.
They have no need to launder money.
Money laundering is the process of converting cash obtained through illegal transactions into legitimate money that can be invested. Oligrarchs are already free to do as they wish with their money.
But as is typical those of you on the left make stupid claims without the slightest thought about whether they make sense.
If the reports are true – I beleive the Stone pardon is listed on the FBI receipt.
Regardless, that and your “memorabilia” claim are damning.
Not only is Trump free to take “memorabilia” such as the Stone pardon or photos with foreign leaders – but the whitehouse under every president is a veritable memorabilia factory. When the president signes a bill into law – boxes of pens are used, on multple copies so that there is plenty of memorabilia to divvy up.
If this is about memorabilia – you lose, Garland, Wray and Biden get impeached.
It ain’t. This is serious.
“47. From May 16-18, 2022, FBI agents conducted a preliminary review of the FIFTEEN BOXES provided to NARA and identified documents with classification markings in fourteen of the FIFTEEN BOXES. A preliminary triage of the documents with classification markings revealed the following approximate numbers: 184 unique docmnents bearing classification markings, including 67 documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL, 92 documents marked as SECRET, and 25 documents marked as TOP SECRET. Further, the FBI agents observed markings reflecting the following compartments/dissemination controls: HCS, FISA, ORCON, NOFORN, and SI. Based on my training and experience, I know that documents classified at these levels typically contain NDI.” Cf, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThCMjd7irLM
Trevor Noah on M-a-L: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwVdYtGju90
For those interested:
-ORCON =“originator control”
-NOFORN = “no foreign nationals” (should see these documents)
-HCS = HUMINT (human intelligence) Control System.
-SI = COMINT (communication intelligence, or intercepts) Special Intelligence
Just wow. This is jaw dropping.
1). No one sane trusts the FBI.
2). It appears they are going to have to turn everything over to a master.
3). “marked” is irrelevant. Whether you like it or not Trump declassified tens of thousands of documents.
You are still missing one of the key distinctions between Clinton and Trump.
There was no legal means by which Clinton could posess classified documents outside of the State Department SCIF.
There are only a few ILLEGAL means that Trump can posess classified documents illegally.
The espionage act is NOT about posession. It is about handling.
Finally, it would be illegal for the FBI to release the information you are citing. That means it si a leak to the media.
The track record of media access with self serving anti-trump leaks is absymal.
Have any of them EVER been true ?
Regardless, the FL Circuit court judge has indicated that she is likely to appoint a special master.
So none of this is relevant.
“it would be illegal for the FBI to release the information you are citing. That means it si a leak to the media.”
OMG. It’s a quote from the redacted affidavit that the judge ordered released!! Just how ignorant can you be?
“the FL Circuit court judge has indicated that she is likely to appoint a special master.”
She did, a really stupid thing for her to do before even getting the DOJ’s response. Trump’s lawyers f’d up and haven’t even served the DOJ in this case, but there Cannon goes ordering a DOJ response and anticipating her response before she’s gotten it. A truly inappropriate response on her end.
“There are only a few ILLEGAL means that Trump can posess classified documents illegally.”
He no longer has a security clearance, so if he has classified info, it’s illegal, and it’s illegal for him to have national defense info regardless of whether it’s classified, especially if he has it in an insufficiently-secured location.
““the FL Circuit court judge has indicated that she is likely to appoint a special master.”
She did, a really stupid thing for her to do before even getting the DOJ’s response. Trump’s lawyers f’d up and haven’t even served the DOJ in this case, but there Cannon goes ordering a DOJ response and anticipating her response before she’s gotten it. A truly inappropriate response on her end.”
Is there a reason you should be treated as a credible source ?
If DOJ thinks that she is out of line – they can appeal.
Ignoring the procedural issues – which will sort themselves out – and even if true are not fatal – not that you are a credible source.
On the substance she is likely correct. DOJ requested and the Magistrate approved something close to a general warrant.
DOJ has already admitted that they took more than they should have.
Further the credible allegations of political bias in DOJ/FBI – see collusion delusion, are sufficient to warrant this.
This is a very high profile case – if DOJ is too stupid to follow the law narrowly, the Judge should for them.
I would note – this is an actual Judge, Reinhart is not.
““There are only a few ILLEGAL means that Trump can posess classified documents illegally.”
He no longer has a security clearance, so if he has classified info, it’s illegal, and it’s illegal for him to have national defense info regardless of whether it’s classified, especially if he has it in an insufficiently-secured location.”
False, PLEASE Read Obama’s EO. ex-presidents have the highest security clearance in the US – except current presidents.
Please Read the Espionage act – posession of classified information is not illegal.
how you do so that is illegal. We have never prosecuted a journalist for posession of classified material.
Only the person who provided it.
If Classified documents legally were transfered to MAL, the fact that Trump is no longer president does not make possession suddenly illegal.
This is all quite simple.
Most of the nonsense you are spouting was addressed 2016 with Clinton – and also with Sandy Berger, and John Deutch.
The espionage act covers ACTS, not mere posession.
Who is it with the incredible reputation for collecting dirt ? That would be Hillary.
You said Trump has a penchant for collecting dirt – can you cite an actual example ?
It is not Trump who manufactured lies about political opponents – it is Clinton.
Nor did Trump threaten Biden or anyone else with secret dirt – he points out their own PUBLIC statements and actions.
If your past statements and actions are a threat to you – that is your problem.
What does it take to get you to stop just making things up from thin air ?
You make lots of claims – but you provide no evidence.
When you defame another the burden of proof is on YOU,
And it is high.
We can forgive people for error, for being wrong. We can do so often without any appology for the error.
But those who lie about others are as close to beyond forgiveness as one can get.
With respect to your rants on the PDB.
There is so much wrong. First you make claims without evidence. you constantly office “Trump was famous for …” something you then make up.
But more importantly, I do not care if Trump listened to the PDB.
I care what he DID.
He had the best economy of any president in the 21st century – even factoring in the pandemic.
He clearly did better with C19 than Biden.
He started no wars.
He ended many.
He negotiated broader peace in the mideast.
He contained China.
He contained Russia.
He got the US to energy independence and an energy exporter.
Biden is currently propping up Europe with massive amounts of US LNG that is a byproduct of Trump’s energy policies.
But for that – Europe would be kissing Putin’s ass right now.
He got europeans to start thinking far more seriously about their responsibility to defend themselves.
He armed Ukraine – rather than sending them bandages and blankets.
He did not spawn massive inflation.
He did not bring us all closer to nuclear anhiliation.
he did not bring about a recession.
If he did all that and more while ignoring advisors and the PDB – then kudos to him
and there is something very very wrong about those advisors and the PDB
I would suggest that you should familiarize yourself with Paretto’s law.
80% of what is accomplished is acheived by 20% of people.
Of that – 80% of that is accomplished by 20% of the 20%
and so on.
Whether because he actually paid attention, or because he did not need to.
Trump inarguably got things right.
Biden is inarguably F’ing up by the numbers.
“He had the best economy of any president in the 21st century – even factoring in the pandemic.”
FRED respectfully disagrees. Obama’s last three years was better than his first. 900,000 more jobs created, and less deficit spending, but better GDP numbers. Trump pre-pandemic numbers:
1. 2018 GDP growth revised down to 2.5%
2. 2Q 2019 growth @ 2.0%; 3Q @ 1.9%
3. Job growth revised down by 500,000
4. Mfg sector already in recession
5. Mfg index <50–worst since 2009
6. lnverted yield curve = recession coming
7. Added ~$3T to natʼl debt
Saddle him with the pandemic, and we lost jobs.
“FRED respectfully disagrees. Obama’s last three years was better than his first. 900,000 more jobs created”
Shows you don’t understand the curve representing unemployment in U3. You also don’t understand how to use numbers appropriately. That is OK. We don’t expect much more from leftist ideologues.
Obama took office very nearly at the bottom of a recession. He Should have had a massively booming economy.
He should have seen something much like Reagan did at the end of the recession with several years of 6+% growth.
Instead YOU want to claim that after having the worst recovery since the great depression – the other instance in which the Government meddled in the economy rather than keeping hands off and letting it recover on its own – which history shows us works best, after botching the recovery – 5 years later a couple of years that were sub par compared to the average for the 20th century was something good ?
BTW acording to Trading Economics Obama’s GDP growth was Dropping from its peak in 2014 to near zero toward the end of 2016. GDP litterally started rising again just a few weeks after Trump was elected.
To Be clear the Trump economy was not GOOD – Trump’s 4 year average growth was only 2%, and his first 3 years only averaged 2.5%.
But Trump’s overall Growth was the best of any president in the 21st century. Bush was less than 2% overall ( contra left wing nuts, nearly all the collapse during the “great recession” occured during the Bush admin), Obama was barely over 1.5% overall – despite taking office at near the bottom of a deep recession with nowhere to go but up.
So far it appears that After inflation Biden’s growth will be poor, and we are headed into a recession.
“To Be clear the Trump economy was not GOOD – Trump’s 4 year average growth was only 2%, and his first 3 years only averaged 2.5%.”
John, most economic curves I saw during the transition demonstrated a significant downswing in economic indicators. It takes significant time to reverse such curves, so if the curve was flat, the upswing under Trump likely would have been significantly better. Had the pandemic not occurred and Trump won a second term, his results could have been more like Regan’s. Alternatively, the results could have been better or worse. We cannot know.
His foreign policy rated by you was A+, and the President is most in control of foreign policy. The economy is controlled more by Congress, and he had a Congress filled with opposition bother Democrats and Republicans. I think his economic successes were far greater than you wish to give him credit. The A+ plus an economy that was on the upswing was far better than you give him credit for which brings his Presidency to the top of the list where many other presidents reside.
Absent government, upswings tend to be rapid and strong, they diminish towards the norms as losses from the downswing are recovered.
The Obama recovery was obviously broken. That is a policy failure. Doing nothing would have resulted in a quick strong recovery.
Much of Trump’s economy was really just part of the recovery Obama never got because of bad policies.
That said Trump could have done better – much better. 3.5% is the 20th century norm. 7% was the 19th century norm.
china was seeing double digits for several decades.
Economic growth correlates incredibly to the size of government, the bigger government – the worse the growth.
It is also impacted by the debt burden higher debt lower growth. Reinhart and Roggoff demonstrated that there is likely a tipping point regarding debt where growth gets much much harder – we are past that tipping point.
Japan has had that problem for decades. Bad debt is killing the chinese economy right now.
Trump botched the pandemic – he should have listened to Dr. Atlas and others saying do NOT f with the economy, it will no help, it will make things worse. Whether Trump went willingly or got talked into some of the stupid pandemic stuff – he still screwed up.
And he contributed to current inflation and weakness. that said Biden has doubled and trippled down.
Further Biden spent massive money while the economy was growing strongly – that has a far worse impact than Trump’s spending.
Actually we can know – not in detail and not with absolute certainty. But well enough.
The pandemic would not have gone any better under Trump than Biden.
Execpt the media never would have given Trump the free pass they did Biden.
They would have blamed him for every additional death.
But the economy would have done much better under Trump.
Gas prices would not have sky rocketed.
Putin would not have invaded Ukraine
US energy production would have diminished Putin’s leverage.
Further Biden is perceived rightly as weak. That breeds chaos and adventurism.
There would have been inflation – about 1/3 of what we currently have.
Trump would have been excoriated in the media for his por handling of the media and the pandemic – which would have been far better than Biden’s who is being left alone mostly.
Relations with China would have remained frosty, but we would not be sabre rattling over Taiwan.
Afghanistan would have been a mess. but not half the mess it was under Biden.
“Absent government, upswings tend to be rapid and strong, they diminish towards the norms as losses from the downswing are recovered.”
Upswings can be rapid and strong, but first one must stop the downswing which followed a very slow recovery. That can take a good deal of energy and time and can affect production for quite awhile. Look at how long it took Reagan to achieve significant growth. Trump had the pandemic in an approximate time frame of Reagans growth spurt.
Trump’s gut feelings at the start of the pandemic were correct. Political realities made things a lot worse and almost all of that can be blamed on the left and Some Republicans.
I won’t deal with the other things you mention. Too many.
Economic downswings always occur as a result of the destruction of false value.
Such as the recognition that housing was overpriced resulting in the bursting of the housing bubble.
The downswing is inherently self regulating – it stops approximately when the correct value it reached.
Miscellaneous factors might cause some overshoot on the downside,
regardless, a massive cascade down forever is not possible.
We do no fix recessions – they fix themselves. We cause them.
Upswings are naturally rapid and strong because once all the error is purged from the market opportunities abound.
As a rule the recovery should be atleast as rapid as the drop – absent govenrment interferance.
All past history tends to confirm this.
All economic downturns reach a bottom, and when they do there is massive amounts of resources that are as a result of the downturn free to persue other oportunities. ‘
A downswing that causes massive bankrupticies – leaves office space, factories, machines, and employees all free to be used in new productive ways.
One permutation of Says law is something to the effect that supply creates its own demand.
Downturns liquidate – creating new supply.
The collapse creates the everything needed for the recovery.
Obama caused stagnation with a weak recovery occurring over years. That doesn’t lead to a vibrant economy. Then many of the indices went in the opposite direction they should have gone.
He drained the battery of the economy and then let it go dead causing everything attached to run into trouble. That takes a lot of time to fix.
Obama’s economic response should have been vibrant as preceding recessions were, but he failed and set in place a bad foundation for rebuilding an economy. The Biden administration is doing the same. To correct the foundational problems takes a lot of time and then one has to give the economy a chance to restart.
I have a grim view of the future unless Congress decides to fix our economic foundation. Without repair I don’t think we will see sustained growth in the fashion we saw in earlier years, no matter how well the President does his job.
I thought Obama was one of the worst presidents economically in US history – prior to Biden.
I am sorry there is no equivalence. Obama weakened what should have been a strong recovery.
But there was a recovery nonetheless.
Biden has brought about inflation we have not seen in a generation, and we are in the start of a recession that we have no clue how bad it will be. We are nearly at inflation levels in the late 70’s we should expect the recession to be similar in scale and duration to the carter reagan recession in the early 80’s.
What we can not expect – because Biden’s policies are so horrible, is the recovery we had in the 80’s
Regardless, Obama weakened a recovery.
Biden has destroyed what should have been a boom.
There is no equivalance.
If you wish to argue that Obama made Biden possible – fine. But Biden is looking to drive Buchannon out of the slot for worst US president.
John, you are not thinking about human capital and its ability to respond. Democrat regimes have weakened our human capital and converted producers into takers. Crunching the numbers is a simple way to compare one thing to another because they can be lined up side by side. Our ability to calculate the costs of realigning the human factor is much more difficult.
How many years does it take to replicate a citizen’s birth until he enters the marketplace? I don’t have that answer, but if one has good human capital, not dependent on government, one can reverse bad economic policies much more quickly. When the Soviet Union collapsed did it suddenly become an economic powerhouse?
You are addressing an important though independent issue.
One that goes far beyond specific recent presidents.
Several major academics – such as Johnathan Haidt noted that there was a sudden change in the world in 2013.
That is the point at which major campus’s in the US went nuts.
That is the point at which mistakes of education and child rearing made over decades suddenly all came together in a perfect destructive storm.
Many at the time told us not to worry that the marketplace, the real world would fix these broken kids.
It did not, instead they are busy breaking the real world.
The really good news is that there values are at the core so bad they destroy everything they touch. They can not build – anything. They are nihilist. They turn on their own as easily or easier than those on the right.
This is a lost generation. Whatever their abilities, their capacity to produce even their understanding of the importance of producing is diminished and that will cost us all for a long time.
I recently noted that eco terrorists are going after lithium production. There are lots of environmental problems with lithium mining. But electric cars – which they fawn over are entirely dependent on large scale lithium production.
Again they are nihilist.
Some part of the war over sexualizing young kids that is going on in our education system is a necescary effort to keep the current lost generation from destroying further generations.
I would further note that as F’d up as the woke generation is – we need to consider how they got that way.
They are not the products of broken homes, They are not the product of the worst schools in the country.
They were produced by what we thought was the best of modern liberal education.
WE Failed. WE made them. Many of the same liberals being red pilled today, are responsible for the educational environment that has ruined an entire generation. While I do not wish to let individuals off the hook for responsibility for themselves.
a significant portion of an entire generation did not shift to imbecility and nihilism on its own.
Regardless, we have a major future problem, because we have strongly disincentivized production.
We are seeing this with Biden’s student loan forgiveness.
It is possible that will buy Democrats and army of activist college grads.
But it will do so by creating massive division. Everyone who did not go to college, everyone who paid off their college loans is going to be resentful of those getting a huge windfall at their expense.
“You are addressing an important though independent issue.”
John, when comparing the effectiveness of Presidents evaluating their effects on human capital is most important and is not an independent issue. Long term the destruction of human capital can destroy nations.
One example: Drug addiction along with adding burdens to the country it removes human capital from the system. A President (Biden) that causes increased drug addiction and death or our young is depriving America of the human capital it needs to prosper.
I do not dispute the negative economic and other effect of drugs.
The fact that Biden is making a mess does not make Trump’s drug policies correct.
Trump did not devote political capital to the war on drugs.
He merely stuck with the status quo – mostly.
But we have long ago lost the war on drugs,
and we need a new drug strategy – and policing is not it.
I am libertarian. People have the right to ruin their own lives if they so choose.
And I am not biting on Bull Schiff claims of indirect harms to others from drug abuse.
Just as addicts choose to take drugs.
We choose based on our values to try to help them even when that may seem hopeless.
I am not always happy about the choices others make.
I am especially not happy when it is people close to me.
But I am limited to persuasion in my legitimate power to change their choices.
“Trump did not devote political capital to the war on drugs.
He merely stuck with the status quo – mostly.”
John, one cannot look at things so narrowly. If Trump had completed the wall and permitted it to protect all borders, it would have gone a long way to solving the spiraling drug problem we face today. That is not sticking with the status quo. That is solving a major problem. If we followed Trump’s plans today, the spiraling drug problem would be spiraling downward. Economically things would be better off, pushing your evaluation in an upward direction.
“I am libertarian. People have the right to ruin their own lives if they so choose.”
Being a libertarian is nice, but reality doesn’t permit us to be libertarian if situations will get worse because of libertarian actions. I don’t care if someone uses drugs as long as I don’t have to pay for it. Our present system makes me pay for your drug use, so I will support laws curtailing it until other laws are revised, so I don’t have to pay for it.
I follow policies that protect the nation and everyone else’s liberty. In that way, I am protecting myself.
We are not ever going to win the war on drugs.
2 generations ago we were wise enough to give up on the war on alcohol.
The wall might slow things down or change the delivery means or the cost a bit but that is all.
“Being a libertarian is nice, but reality doesn’t permit us to be libertarian if situations will get worse because of libertarian actions.”
We know from history that adopting libertarian solutions does not make things worse.
Prohibition did nothing to reduce our problems with alcohol. But it did increase crime.
Our experience – the US and other countries with various legalization of drugs demonstrates legalization is no panacea. It does not reduce drug use or drug addiction. It also does not increase it. But it does decrease crime. and it does reduce or eliminate many problems associated with drug addiction.
“We know from history that adopting libertarian solutions does not make things worse.”
John, our present open borders policy proves that pure libertarianism (an impossibility) doesn’t work to stop drugs. You previously stated that you agreed with open borders.
Nothing stops drugs. PERIOID
I would note what we have now is not “open borders” it is far worse.
Finish the wall, let people come in through a port of entry.
That is the requirement of the law and constitution.
When that is accomplished – we can work to change the law.
I would allow everyone in without a record of violence.
But I would work to change the law to do that.
Others would make different choices.
In the end we will get a law that is not to my liking and a bad law.
But probably less bad than we have.
Further the rule of law will be preserved.
But lets say lighnting struck and we got open borders.
That is still not tens of thousands of people trespassing on private property.
Enter at a prot of entry.
Finally – actual open borders would be a boon for the country.
But it would not be a win for everyone.
It would be a disaster for low skilled americans.
“Nothing stops drugs. PERIOID”
Nothing completely stops bad behavior, but many things can be done or not done so that the bad behavior is better controlled.
Building the wall as desired by Trump, along with a myriad of other things, would have drastically reduced the drug problem and the deaths. The leftists promoted drugs entering the country through their policies.
“I would allow everyone in without a record of violence.”
Considering the socialist social welfare we have today, such open borders would be, as demonstrated by the Biden administration, a disaster. Though debatable, I believe immigration is needed to maintain our population. We should permit immigration based on their benefit to America and American citizens.
Proper immigration policy is what Trump wanted. These things are important and show that Trump was an excellent President.
“Nothing completely stops bad behavior, but many things can be done or not done so that the bad behavior is better controlled.”
Maybe, but for many many things there is no evidence that is the case. This is very important, and it is another reason why we address such problems outside of govenrment.
We have spent 200+ years trying to address issues of mental health. Each generation came up with a new answer and considered what the prior geneation did barbaric. With extremely few rare exceptions – every single generation has FAILED to do anything truly positive about people with mental health issues.
Few if any of us do not have compassion for people with mental health problems. I have several friends, and even family members with mental health issues that have no cure and honestly no treatment that has any consequential benefit.
I want to see us work hard to address the people with these problems.
But I am absolutely totally completely OPPOSED to doing so through government. The disasters in treatment of people with mental health problems over the past 200 years are ALL – UNIVERSALLY failures of government.
I do not want govenrment power used, I do not want government money used. I do not want government involved.
Our only hope for answers – and it may take years, decades, centuries, forever, is free markets. Where many options are tried, no force is permitted, bad ideas are allowed to fail, and we learn from successes and failures.
That pretty much almost never happens with government.
There is no role for government in drugs and drug addiction. There is nothing Government has done that has not made things WORSE.
I am well aware of the problems with addiction. Maybe in time we will do better – but I am not holding my breath.
One of the hardest things for all of us to grasp – right and left, but especially the left, is that often we just do not have answers.
I am pretty familiar with what has happened in countries that have legalized, decriminalized, or various other stages of trying to extricate from the war on drugs (prostitution results are much the same).
The degree of success is directly proportionate to the extent government gets completely out of the issue.
And even then – success in terms of drugs is the reduction of violence, and crime, and overdoses.
It is NOT a reduction in addiction. We do not have an answer that works.
I am going to go one step further – one occasion we actually find answers that appear to work.
Section 8 started as a pilot program at the infamous Cabrini greene. Government cherry picked residents desparate to get out. Provided them with the best case workers, and resources, and support, and damned if the success rate was not phenomenal. So great that rather than step the program a bit larger and test further, it became a national program, that has not only been a horrible failure – but actually severely damaged the black middle class.
Even when we think we have something that works – under optimal conditions – the real world is not optimal.
The original successful Section 8 pilot is still moving drug dealers and the worst of those in poverty on a conveyor belt out into successful but fragile minority communities. Families that moved out of inner city hells to escape these problems and protect their kids now have government moving the problems they tried to escape next door.
Why does Section 8 work ?
Because every poor person is not those cherry picked already primed to get out and succeed – who even without government help, likely will succeed. The original S8 was selective. as a nationwide program it is not.
Because ever caseworked is not the cream of the crop.
Because few if any problems can be solved by money.
Some problems are not solveable – today – and maybe ever.
Some probelms might be solveable for some people under optimal conditions, but certainly not everyone and not under most condititons.
Money and government do not even make ideas that work small scale work at large scale.
And again some solutions that work under optimal conditions will not work under anything less than optimal conditions. And the world is only rarely optimal.
The war on drugs is an absolute total irredeemable disaster. Ending it won’t make our drug problems go away – it is not likely we have ANY answers to that today, but it will make the problems caused by the war on drugs go away.
With respect to nearly all our problems – if there are answers – it is highly unlikely they involve government.
“Building the wall as desired by Trump, along with a myriad of other things, would have drastically reduced the drug problem and the deaths.”
Probably not. The laws of supply and demand are immutable.
It is True that Covid – and particularly our policies responses drove up anxiety, depression – and drug addiction and overdoses. If people want something bad enough – someone will supply it – no matter what obstacles government puts in the way.
“The leftists promoted drugs entering the country through their policies.”
Yes, primarily through bad public policies on Covid.
“Considering the socialist social welfare we have today, such open borders would be, as demonstrated by the Biden administration, a disaster.”
Again the disaster is not letting people in, it is the socialism that permeates government regardless of immigration.
I support open borders. I do not support minimum wages, free heatlhcare, or pretty much free anything.
I would return schools and healthcare all back to free markets and get government out of them entirely.
Regardless, you identified the real problem – and then blamed open borders – not the actual problem.
“Proper immigration policy is what Trump wanted.”
No Trump wanted a specific immigration policy. One that was good for some and not others.
Biden’s is good for some and not others.
Different people were hurt by Trump than Biden.
But the big difference is that Trump’s policies were within the law. Biden’s are not.
We should – and nearly did improve our immigration laws – and then follow them.
If they do not work – we change the law, not let president’s unilaterally do what they think is best.
““Nothing completely stops bad behavior …”
John, the wall is an example of an effective action by the government, that can reduce drugs and human trafficking. That proves my contention, “Nothing completely stops bad behavior, but many things can be done or not done so that the bad behavior is better controlled.”
You are taking the opposite approach, “Maybe, but for many many things there is no evidence that is the case.” However, I believe in dealing with these things on a case-by-case basis.
Mental health is a different problem and has little relationship to building a wall. I will deal with the social welfare mess another time, but mention now, that because of that mess your desire for open borders will only cause harm.
You might be interested in this. Many years ago I went to Christiana in Denmark to see how it functioned. It was a commune where drugs were legal and people were left alone though many were financially subsidized. Some thought it would be a haven for people to express themselves and perhaps have the ability to be artistic. As I expected they were slovenly and did absolutely nothing. The only reasonably functioning business was the pot stands selling weed to tourists at a high price.
You assume that I think that ending the war on drugs – or other stupid laws will bring about a panecea.
I do not. I do not think any country that has relaxed drug laws has reduced drug use and addition.
All they have done is reduce violence, crime and deaths.
Again, we seem to think every problem is solveable, and that the solution is with govenrment.
Conservatives may go with more traditional law and order approaches than left wing nuts.
But that does not alter the fact they Still think Government is the answer.
I am not opposed to a wall. Even support for nearly unlimited immigration – does not mean support for anarchy and chaos.
What Biden is doing is not open borders it is lawlessness.
If we are going to take and extra 2 million people a year, we MUST end much of the social welfare state, and/or we MUST make sure the burden of these immigrants is not disproportionately felt.
Texas should not be the victim of the whims of people from NY or WA.
“I don’t care if someone uses drugs as long as I don’t have to pay for it. Our present system makes me pay for your drug use”
I do not and have never in my entire life used illegal drugs. I am 64 and I have never smoked Pot, I barely drink – I like alcohol, but it gives me heart burn and I do not like it enough for heart burn.
I would still legalize heroin, and fentynal.
We pay for others drug use today – because we pay as drug users steal, mug, rob, shoplift etc. to buy drugs.
“so I will support laws curtailing it until other laws are revised, so I don’t have to pay for it.”
The best way to eliminate your having to pay for anything others do – much less drugs is libertarianism.
“I follow policies that protect the nation and everyone else’s liberty. In that way, I am protecting myself.”
But they don’t.
Reagan’s recovery did not take long.
It was the forced recession that was drawn out.
We currently have no known means of purging inflation from a system aside from high interest rates which will cause a recession.
Historically that is not a quick process.
“Reagan’s recovery did not take long.
It was the forced recession that was drawn out.”
AS I said, Reagan took time before we saw the growth numbers rise.
The nation is a lot more socialist now, then it was then. That means things work even slower unless the foundation is fixed.
We are going to have a recession if we want to clear inflation.
Given that we have nearly equal to 70’s inflation, the recession should be similar.
But Biden is not Reagan and I am not sure this recession will have a recovery at all.
I give Trump lots of economic credit – he was the best president in the 21st century.
That is what he deserves.
His regulation policy was better than anyone since Carter,
His energy policy was the best in my lifetime.
His tax policies were moves in the right direction.
but Obamacare remains an economic drag.
Spending was and is way too high and Trump made that worse.
In the event he runs and wins in 2024 I expect him to do much better.
But until we are prepared to get spending under control there are limits to what can be done to improve the economy.
“I give Trump lots of economic credit – he was the best president in the 21st century.
That is what he deserves.
His regulation policy was better than anyone since Carter,
His energy policy was the best in my lifetime.
His tax policies were moves in the right direction.”
Sounds pretty good.
“but Obamacare remains an economic drag.”
That is a Congressional defeat because of a dumb Republican.
“Spending was and is way too high and Trump made that worse.”
Trump got an A+ for foreign policy by you. To maintain the appearance of strength he needed to pass a spending bill for the military. Spending to protect the nation is not a bad thing. It is a good thing that gives Trump a higher grade (not a lower one).
That he was forced into the other spending package was a problem created by Democrats and some Republicans.
You are rating Trump by rating Trump plus Congress. That distorts how one asses what Trump did.
We grade presidents not merely on there narrow excercise of power – but the economy as a whole, what legislation is passed and things often beyond their control.
Trump is stuck with the pandemic and our botched handling of it. Just as Biden is stuck with the pandemic in 2021 and 2022.
It is not inherently fair to hold Trump accountable for doing a little of what the left wanted regarding Covid to avoid getting run out of town on a rail. Regardless, it was still a choice and still a mistake. The economists left and right I know suggest that the inflation Trump caused is about 3% – Biden is responsible for the other 5+%.
And who knows how much more if this student loan fiasco goes through – which I doubt.
Biden gets the credit/blame for the bills just past, and the blame for those not passed.
The same is true with Trump
“We grade presidents not merely on there narrow excercise of power – but the economy as a whole, what legislation is passed and things often beyond their control.”
John, I don’t. I grade Presidents based on their performance. I have to consider the parts they could or could not control and look at the outcomes. Trump did very well. I am not happy with everything he did on the domestic front, but a lot of that was a compromise and served the bigger picture.
“it was still a choice and still a mistake.”
One cannot only look at what is ideologically satisfying. If the choice would have left us worse off in another area, I give the President credit for the choice. I am not grading his adherence to ideology.
There is no use in comparing him to Biden. Biden is President in name only. If you wish to compare the effectiveness of all policies over the four years, you can do that, but then you are also judging the actions of Congress.
What you do and what the country does is not the same.
Your criteria may be better – though I am not all that sure. But it is not what most people do.
Overall I am impressed by the wisdom of crowds – with some specific limits.
People usually get it wrong in their first emotional reaction, but given time and thought the great unwashed are more likely to get things right than the experts – atleast on matters of public concern.
“I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2000 members of the faculty of Harvard University.”
John, if I cared excessively about what other people did, I would have to change my lifestyle. When I hired a person for an executive position, I looked at what he did and the type of conditions he faced. I like to fix things that don’t work. That provides the most income because the buying price is low and the selling price is high.
Presidents also get credit/blame for things that are their predecessors responsibility.
Much of the strength of the current economy is the consequence of Trump not Biden,
At the same time the seeds of inflation are Trump’s not Biden’s. But Biden gets all the blame and credit for both because they happened on his watch.
“Presidents also get credit/blame for things that are their predecessors responsibility.
Much of the strength of the current economy is the consequence of Trump not Biden,”
That is correct and the current economy is important when judging Trump. Trump’s actions are sustaining Biden’s Presidency.
I think we are well past the point were Trump’s actions are supporting Biden.
But I do expect this is going to get worse not better.
John, as I said earlier, it is hard to evaluate the costs of human capital. Trump led to an improvement in Human capital. Biden is destroying it.
Trump did a lot of things that remain unnoticed in your calculations.
You have an interesting point regarding human capital.
I am not sure the impact – atleast Trump’s positive impact is large enough to be consequential.
I railed about the unproductive and actually self destructive nihilism of the woke.
MAGA is a sort of backlash of the productive – not the Musk/Bezos/Jobs types that are incredibly important.
But the farmers, and plumbers and myriads of people who may not change the world, but they do support a family.
We have declining birth rates – we have had that for a while. Some of that is a consequence of rising affluence.
But when a society does not maintain population there are massive problems.
We had a problem BEFORE the woke generation. But from what I can see much of the woke generation is not even capable of relationships, forming families, supporting families,
We are seeing a bit o this in the PA senate race. Polls have a guy who lived off his parents until he was 49 leading a guy who throughout his lifetime has supported a family as well as provided jobs for dozens of others.
Knowing very little else – why would anyone vote for the guy who has never been productive ?
We have this in Bidens vs,. Trumps.
Has anyone in the Biden family EVER produced anything ever ? Please show me any of their wealth that is not directly or indirectly the consequence of swilling at the public trough ?
Whether they are corrupt – which seems likely – they are non-productive.
Conversely ALL the Trump’s produce things that other people want. they build and improve golf courses, casinos, condominiums, cloths, and on and on.
The left has wasted enormous efforts trying to prove that some portion of that was somehow illgotten.
What does illgotten even mean ?
Whatever wealth the Trump’s accumlated was done so providing value to others.
Whatever wealth the Biden’s have accumulated is inarguable sponging off the public.
This is true regardless of whether the Biden’s or Trumps violated the law.
The Biden family has never been productive.
Have I have claimed Trump was a great president ?
I would give him a C+ on the economy.
But every other 21st century president has been an economic failure.
You say Obama’s last three years were great.
Trading Economics says otherwise. 2014 was Better than any year of Trump’s presidency. But 2015 and 2016 Growth was dropping. By nov 2016 it was near zero and everyone was predicting recession. that turned arround within a week of Trump’s election. Just the knowledge that Clinton would not be president started the economy improving.
Regardless, I have not checked your figures, But I do not disagree that Trump was not a great economic president.
He just looks great compared to the piss poor job of his predecessors and successor.
Trump spent far too much money. He did nothing to bring deficits under control. He increased the national debt substantially.
In these he was at best no better than Obama, and probably worse. but those are not the totality of his effect on the economy.
The tax cuts were consequential – aside from everything else they also cleaned up the tax code. Bringing us a bit closer to a flat tax.
Anon: “Shows you don’t understand the curve representing unemployment in U3. You also don’t understand how to use numbers appropriately.”
Physician, heal thyself. Unemployment rates ≠ actual job numbers.
You can talk all you want, but a long time ago we proved you knew nothing about such rates and you haven’t learned anything since.
Right at the beginning of your comment you demonstrated you ignorance on what the numbers mean and the appropriate comparisons. I’ll reserve that type of discussion for those who I converse with under my alias. For you I have nothing. That matches what we expect from you. Nothing.
While I would dispute your claims as unsupported by any actual evidence.
They are also irrelevant.
Innarguably Trump was disruptive – just as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezo’s, and Mark Zuckerberger are.
I do not doubt that being close to him, working with him is likely to produce anxiety, depression and undermine your sense of self worth.
I am certain that being in the same room with him would require the woke to rush off to their safe space to cling to their emotional support animal.
In the real world that is how lots of things get done quickly. And Trump got lots of things done quickly
Just like myriads of other super successful disruptors.
Put differently – though your poor grasp of human nature makes it near certain your attempts to read Trump’s mind are hilarious failures – even if you were right – SO WHAT ?
None of your poorly made and unsuported claims – even if true – get you where you are trying to go.
Your anxiety levels are not evidence of wrong doing. Your fears are not. Your transparent projection is not.
You have failed miserably to make the case that Trump had any motive at all.
No. Presidential security clearance is held only by the President, and is lost as soon as a new President is sworn in. Any clearance extended to a former President is at the discretion of the current one, and Biden stopped giving him briefings almost from the day he left. Biden says Trump should no longer get intelligence briefings, Feb. 5, 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/02/05/biden-says-trump-should-no-longer-get-intelligence-briefings/
And if a Bill Clinton EO is binding, so is Obama’s EO wrt the declassification of national secrets. Trump did not have lawful authority to have any of those documents at his social club, by your own admission.
“No. Presidential security clearance is held only by the President”
Correct, The clearance of all former administration officials including ALL former presidents and vice presidents is specified by the Obama EO.
“and is lost as soon as a new President is sworn in.”
The constitutional authority is lost when the next president is sworn it. That is the authority to unilaterally declassify anything, or give it to anyone. To declassify defacto. To declassify with a “standing order” to declassify verbally.
An Ex president or government official has no classified authority by the constitution or the law.
But they DO by Executive Order – Obama’s EO, which you clearly have not read.
Ex-Presidents and vice presidents are given by the Obama EO unlimited secutity clearance WITHOUT any need to know requirement. that is ONLY true of expresidents and vice presidents.
The current president – Biden can revoke or limit that access at anytime. But absent having done so, all former presidents all allowed unlimited access to classified documents.
“Any clearance extended to a former President is at the discretion of the current one,”
Correct, but the default specified by the Obama EO was unlimited access. The current president must revise the Obama EO or affirmatively act to limit an ex-presidents access.
“and Biden stopped giving him briefings almost from the day he left. Biden says Trump should no longer get intelligence briefings,”
I have seen no evidence of that. But even if true, that would be limited to “intelligence briefings”.
Biden could rescind any former presidents access entirely – but he would actually have to affirmatively do so.
He could do so orally – that would still have to be directly communicated to the person whose access was rescinded before there would be criminal liability.
Lets assume that Trump have 5M highly classified documents at MAL.
That these were all brought there while he was president, and therefore no crime could possibly be committed by moving them to MAL.
Lets assume that Biden orally told the WH cheif of staff – entirely rescind Trump’s access to all classified materials.
That order would go into effect immediately – but no one, Not Trump, not others in the Biden admin, would be criminally liable for following the Obama EO until Bidens order was communicated to them.
Lets assume that Trump is notified that Biden has revoked entirely Trump’s access to EVERYTHING classified.
Anything still in Trump’s posession would STILL be legal.
Finally, Trump has asserted that he declassified all the material in his posession. that means even if Biden revoked Trump’s access to classified documents, Trump ca still access unclassified documents in his posession.
Further, it is legally tenous whether a successor president can reclassify what a prior president declassified.
They certainly CAN not without rescinding the executive order declassifying it.
Nor can they if the material has been shared.
Decades old caselaw specifies that government can shout until it is blue in the face that something is classified.
Once it is public it is not classified.
I would strongly suggest reading the court cases involving “the pentagon papers”. These address myriads of issues here – including demonstrating uneequivocally that the espionage act would not apply.
There is some small true to the left wing nuts claims that the espionage act is not specifically about classified documents.
But contra the lefts bogus legal analysis the ACTUAL supreme court decisions in the Pentagon paper is the OPPOSITE.
i.e. that just because something is classified does not mean revealing it violates the espionage act.
The courts have found that the espionage act applies to National defense information that would be CURRENTLY actually harmful to the US. Not merely embarassing, not merely exposing government misconduct.
There is no possibility that anything related to the FBI/DOJ collusion delusion would fit that.
“Why would Trump possess documents marked classified ?”
To sell them. To use as blackmail fodder. Trump had no discernible need to know.
“To sell them.”
If you have actual evidence of that – go for it. Even WaPo and NYT have not so much as alleged that.
“To use as blackmail fodder.”
You do understand that most of what people refer to as blackmail is legal ?
It is impossible to blackmail people whose conduct is unapproachable.
Further, Trump is not into blackmail. He is in to exposure.
Lets, say there was a classified document in Trump’s posession proving that Biden was lying through his teeth.
You are arguing that Trump will contact Biden and say something like – “give me a casino concession in FL or I will expose your lies”
Nearly everyone in the world knows Trump would just make the material public.
That is not blackmail. Though classifying documents to hide misconduct is criminal.
“Trump had no discernible need to know.”
That is impossible to discern without knowing what is in the documents.
Regardless Obama;’s EO explicitly directs that prior presidents and vice presidents do not need to demonstrate a need to know to access classified documents
Your arguments are much like nutacha’s.
We plow over the same ground repeatedly – your arguments failed before.
The law does not support you,
The constitution does not support you.
The Obama EO does not support you.
Even the warrant and affadavit do not support you.
There is a very very very narrow path to actually criminal conduct on the part of Trump in this.
And that path gets narrower with each discloser.
As I have said repeatedly – if this is about the collusion delusion documents – the Crime here is obstruction of justice and coverup by Biden/DOJ/FBI. And with every new revalation that becomes more likely.
several people have stated publicly or even testified that Trump had a Standing Order on declassification.
But that debate is moot – if these are collusion delusion documents – as they were declassified by EO.
You note correctly that Biden can rescind unilaterally Trump’s access to classified documents.
but you fail to grasp that he can do so orally – completely obliterating your own purported due process argument.
You note that it is reported that Biden has specifically deprived Trump of access to the PDB – an unusual, but constitutional move.
I do not know there is a record of that – beyond your claim. But more importantly there is no record of Biden completely revoking Trump’s access to classified documents. Without that all criminal claims against Trump must fail.
I was not completely joking when I said previously you need video of Trump breaking into the WH on Jan 21,2021.
Or that you needed evidence of Trump selling nuclear secrets to the Saudi’s.
This is not at all like the Clinton case.
You do not have a situation where mere possession is defacto proof of illegal aquisition.
You do not have a case of egregious mishandling. Everything was locked up – not on the internet.
You do not have allowing access to people without clearance – including foreign powers.
“Those on the left do not understand that money is merely a tool to fascilitate exchange.”
This in great part separates the right from the left though many active politicians and movers on the right haven’t learned this fundamental.
“All money is a matter of belief.”
— Adam Smith
Money is very simple, and very hard at the same time.
No one on the left understands it at all.
Not many on the right do.
Instead of lawdog, libeldog might be more appropriate, but maybe you are just in the dark. The Hill couldn’t be specific on anything Solomon wrote under his control. Solomon provides transcripts, documents, videos, etc. while The Hill provided statements from the nameless criticizing but refusing to repudiate what Solomon wrote.
If you go to https://justthenews.com and read his reports, you will note that he provides documents to validate what he is saying. If you can find a lie, let us know. The Hill didn’t, and in fact, time has proven Solomon’s articles to be correct while the MSM has been repeatedly wrong. I urge you to test him out, so you don’t make a fool of yourself.
The Hill finds John Solomon ‘failed’ to identify key details of sources, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/19/hill-john-solomon-failed-disclose-details-115976
The guy is not so much a reporter as he is a partisan hack. It’s like watching RT or listening to TASS.
Lawdog: Take note of how you linked but couldn’t describe your complaints. Take note in the first paragraph, that Politico made a mistake or lied. You talk big, but your statements lack credibility and fact.
You accept anonymous sources from the NYT, WaPo, and other media, but when Solomon provides names or information more tangible it is not acceptable to your double standard.
You or your side has been wrong on almost everything from the Russia Hoax to Covid, always pretending to know the law or the science, but it turned out that your side knew neither.
Though your side has been wrong, you expect people to believe it now. That is known as insanity per Einstein.
If you want to make a complaint against Solomon, tell us your complaint and the details you think are important. Then quote the link. Right now, all you are doing is piling garbage onto garbage.
Solomon is one of the best investigative reporters around, documenting what he says and proving it every time he writes an article. You are calling him names better deserved by those you trust or yourself.
Solomon isn’t a central part of the discussion, and he is known to be a consistently sketchy source. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-the-news/. I don’t keep detailed dossiers on every reporter.
“I don’t keep detailed dossiers on every reporter.”
Obviously you don’t, but you do slime good investigative reporters if you don’t like what they have to say.
Don’t provide links, Tell us what you think is important. In that way we can directly tell you that you are wrong. Take note! The Hill was no better at providing proof of Solomon doing anything wrong at the Hill than you are. Take note! the Hill didn’t repudiate anything Solomon said, but a lot of other things written by the Hill were proven wrong.
Suggestion, don’t slime people unless you have the facts.
I have been a source for national news stories, and know how hard it is to get a reporter to get things right. As such, my approach to media echoes Reagan’s favorite Russian proverb: “Doveryai, no proveryai.”
Last year, Faux was passing around stories about Joe Biden wanting to limit meat consumption to 4 lbs per year, and Kamala Harris’ book being given to every migrant child crossing the border. Both were absurd on their face, but that didn’t stop Faux. In the real world, the WaPo and Times are more reliable than anything the Right has to offer because they (a) would never give succor to some of the real weird sh*t you find in Breitbart and on OAN, and (b) routinely correct their articles when they do get things wrong (as EVERY news outlet does!). A six-month old WaPo article is as good as it gets.
But that does not mean that you should accept their claims — and their spin — without question. The first question I ask is that of the lawyer: “Cui bono?”
To a student of history, Trump’s whine about the lying press is an echo of Adolf Hitler’s cry of “Lugenpresse!” To this old J.D., the revelations of the Mueller Report, the Senate Intel report, and subsequent court findings constitute proof that Trump is Marionetka Putina — we now have the smoking gun wrt collusion from Judge Jackson’s ruling. And to this veteran C.P.A., the Arizona FRAUD-it blazes new trails in the wilderness of farce.
But how do I prove something to a man who believes that Tom Hanks is part of a cabal of baby-eating pedophiles, Covid is part of Bill Gates’ nefarious scheme to depopulate the planet, that Donald Trump’s decades-long “wingman” relationship with pedophile Jeff Epstein was totally above-board, and doctors, scientists, scholars, historians, economists, and journalists have devoted their entire existence to deceiving you, while a reality TV star with a documented record of decades of open fraud and corruption is your only reliable source of truth?
Alice’s Red Queen couldn’t believe half of what you do.
When it comes to conspiracies, I follow a few simple rules. First, I always ask, “Cui bono?” The conspirators have to benefit in some material way. Second, I apply Occam’s Razor: a simple and plausible explanation is preferred over a convoluted and implausible one. Third, there is the rule of large numbers: the larger a conspiracy would have to be to work, the less likely that a conspiracy is real–because someone would squawk. Finally, there is Huxley’s aphorism: ugly little facts ruin the most beautiful theories.
Solomon became part of a Russian disinformation campaign, intended to help Putin’s “partner” Donald Trump. https://www.mediamatters.org/john-solomon/how-conservative-writer-john-solomon-served-conduit-rudy-giulianis-ukraine-conspiracy. He got too close to the sun, in a sense. Firtash, Parnaas, and Igor. Batty-Man Guiliani, and his henchmen Frick and Frack. He could easily have been indicted in the scheme to solicit a bribe from Zelenskyy, and getting your info from Russian intelligence is rarely a good plan.
In all things Trump, Solomon is tainted goods.
“I have been a source for national news stories”
If that is so, you should know Solomon is a great investigative reporter. If he wasn’t, you could easily rattle off the things he did wrong. The Hill tried to do that but failed. Their only factual statement was wrong.
Solomon reports what he finds. He provides the transcripts, videos, depositions, etc.
“Last year, Faux was passing around stories about Joe Biden wanting to limit meat consumption to 4 lbs per year, and Kamala Harris’ book being given to every migrant child crossing the border.”
Lawdog, take note of how easy it was for you to provide falsified and incorrect news, yet you can’t provide the same for John Solomon. That proves you ought to drop your claims until you research them.
“In the real world, the WaPo and Times are more reliable than anything the Right has to offer”
If that is what you believe, then I feel sorry for you because you are living in a fantasy world. The reporting of those two papers regarding trump has been atrocious. They were almost always wrong. A flip of the coin would do better.
“To a student of history, Trump’s whine about the lying press is an echo of Adolf Hitler’s cry of “Lugenpresse!”
I am listening to your hysteria and the time you spend venting, none of which has anything to do with John Solomon. Instead, you are now talking about Trump, Hitler, and false reporting. You are talking a lot while saying absolutely nothing.
You go from there to other people and your personal philosophy, which hasn’t served you very well. After this useless material you get back to mentioning Solomon.
You write: “Solomon became part of a Russian disinformation campaign, intended to help Putin’s “partner” Donald Trump.”
But you provide no proof, only a link. You link because you have such a poor understanding of the world and depend on puff pieces that satisfy your needs but contain nothing of value. If the link had value and you, your stated news skills, you should be able to communicate what the link said. Instead, there is lots of talk with nothing of value.
“In all things Trump, Solomon is tainted goods.”
Yet, you haven’t brought one fact to the table. How one can develop an opinion on something without knowing anything is a question I will leave to the historians when they write about the empty heads that existed during this timeframe.
SM: “But you provide no proof, only a link.”
You don’t even provide that. I made the case that Solomon ignored the evidence involving Ukraine. Either he is blindingly incompetent or worse.
“You don’t even provide that. I made the case that Solomon ignored the evidence involving Ukraine. Either he is blindingly incompetent or worse.”
Lawdog, you made no case that Solomon ignored evidence. You are making things up trying to protect your dignity, but instead ruining your credibility. I referred you to The Hill article. Despite their claim based on no evidence, proven mistruths, or error, they never repudiated his articles on Ukraine or anything else. That by itself is proof. All his writings on Ukraine are proof along with the data that he provided with his writing. More proof has been provided intermittently every time he is quoted on this blog.
You provided zero evidence of your claim demeaning the man. You should be ashamed of making such claims without evidence. You were unable to prove your case, admit you were wrong, or simply say you don’t know enough.
You failed to protect your credibility. Find a new alias.
“you should know Solomon is a great investigative reporter.”
Because he says what you want to hear. As shown elsewhere, he is a hack.
Anonymous the Stupid, I have quoted a lot from John Solomon along with the documentation. So far that great reporting is what has been posted. No facts have been provided on this blog that prove otherwise.
You are becoming desperate and I think making things up or you are having hallucinations.
And yet, Solomon has.
You keep citing defamatory claims by partisan hacks.
I asked you for EVIDENCE that Solomon had acted dishonestly.
Or even that he had erred.
Instead you provide lots of people defaming solomon – as if that is evidence.
If I say “you are a liar” – the burdern of proof is on me, and it is the highest burden of proof there is,
I am not merely saying you are wrong, but that you are deliberately trying to deceive.
Absent proof – the moral failing is presumed to be mine.
Worse if subsequently you prove to be correct – my moral failure is gargantuan.
Plenty of people have said bad things about Solomon – including YOU.
They are objectively false.
Providing further evidence that others have eroneously defamed Solomon harms rather than helps your case.
I would further note that while all journalists use sources, including occasionally anonymous sources, Solomon does so very rarely, or for the most part to provide him with a direction for inquiry – not as the meat of a story.
Solomons reporting is driven more than any journalist I know by FACT – by documents – either public documents, or those acquired through the equivalent of FOIA.
Solomon had Hundreds of documents from primary sources – the State department, Rosemont Senneca, Ukrainian court documents – long before the Hunter Biden laptop emerged.
The Biden crime syndicate was well established by John Solomon – long BEFORE the hunter Biden laptop.
John Solomon does not print anything that is not backed up by documents – usually public source documents.
As such his reporting is unassailable.
You are welcome to try.
But discrediting him can not be accomplished by repeating ad hominem.
John Solomon is an incredible journalist because he is meticulous well sourced and right.
Not because he is popular or because his findings please or offend some.
Those on the left think that there is no such thing as objective truth.
That facts are irrelevant – unless they support their claims.
That asserting anything that feels right to them is proof.
BS. Some on the right and left may think that, but most don’t.
As a rule in history where there are two separate groups at odds, neither side is correct,
But one side is always far more wrong than the other.
Today the left is very broken and dangerous.
And we are seeing that, and it will get worse is unchecked.
I am liberatarian – not on the right. At times in the past I have fought against stupid measures by the right.
Even now – while the right is the lessor evil, in many things they go to far.
Today the threat is from the left.
The left is actively seeking to destroy the rule of law.
The concept of anything even approximating objective truth.
We see the results in the world as they put the policies that result into place.
It was no accident that the Afghan withdrawl was a mess – The Taliban saw Biden as weak.
It was no accident that Putin invaded Ukraine – Russia saw Biden as weak.
Xi’s sabre rattling in asia is no accident – he sees Biden as corrupt and weak.
As Milton Friedman noted long ago “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenonmena”
Too much money chasing too little goods.
The only known remedy is draconian – cut the money supply, and that triggers a recession.
Inflation is insidious – because we end up having to pay three times for wasteful govenrment spending.
We pay in price increases,
We pay in the recession that must follow
and ultimately we STILL must pay for it.
And in the midst of inflation and the resulting recession – what do those on the left do ?
We are now spending a fortune to purportedly reduce Global warming by some tiny fraction of a degree.
The Fed has found that for each $1 increase in subsidized student loans over the past 40 years – colleges have increased their cost by $0.60.
So what are we doing – turning about half a trillion on student loans into a gift.
To pay for that gift of $10K for many of the elite – for an enormous number in government, the avergage family will have to pay an additional $6000 in taxes.
But those on the left still think that there is such a thing as free.
Those on the left do not understand that money is merely a tool to fascilitate exchange.
Ultimate every good or service consumed MUST be produced.
This is just a small subset of the idiocy of the left.
I have not touched such things as the collusion delusion or the beleif that the evidence of the corruption of the Biden’s is russian disinformation.
“. . . RW scandal sheets . . .”
When you can’t pound the facts or the law, pound the man.
Sam, great response. That is all the left is able to do. Lawdog wrote extensive responses about all sorts of things but was unable to touch on any facts that show Solomon to be a bad reporter. When faced with the lack of data, instead of backing off, he pursues his claims “pound [ing} the man”. He wants people to assume he has a legal mind, but what he has proven is that he is a ‘factless’ hack.
Asked and answered. Look again.
You talked about everything under the sun, lawdog, but left out any facts that demonstrated Solomon isn’t a great investigative reporter.
“Asked and Answered” is a way for you to make peace with yourself and to convince those that didn’t watch you flailing around to prove your case.
Let’s be clear. You couldn’t bring up one fact on Solomon. All you could do was “pound the man”. By doing so you destroyed your own persona.
It’s a silly discussion. Trump cannot assert executive privilege against the Executive Branch.
This is not “fascilitaed” – this is INSTIGATED.
“The Justice Department under Attorney General William Barr improperly withheld portions of an internal memo Barr cited in announcing that then-President Donald Trump had not obstructed justice in the Russia investigation, a federal appeals panel said Friday.” https://lasvegassun.com/news/2022/aug/19/russia-probe-memo-wrongly-withheld-under-barr-cour/. To put it in simple English, “Coverup General” Barr covered up yet another crime.
Whatever happened to “Individual-1”? The solicitation of a bribe from President Zelenskyy? If anything, Garland has been far too timorous, and you really couldn’t give a shit if Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue.
The minute that that van got onto I-95 on the road to Mar-a-Lago, Trump had committed a felony. And when Christina Bobb denied that there were classified documents, somebody violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The fact that they retrieved boxes of material proves that the search was not pretextual, and if they snagged J-6 documents, they killed two birds with one stone.
And I don’t want to hear “Obama did it!” because he didn’t. His unsecured docs are in a National Archives facility in Chicago, and the classified ones didn’t leave DC.
Not this nonsense again.
The collusion delusion was a HOAX!!!!!
You can rant nonsense about what Barr did or did not, you can pretned that some real or fake memo was meaningless.
But lets be clear – no matter what Mueller whined – with a trillion dollars and 10,000 years he never would have gotten Trump.
He could not have – because he was chasing a HOAX!!!!.
This is established FACT now. There is zero room for debate. There was no collusion, the entire mess was MADE UP by Hillary and her cronies. This is not an opinion – it is a FACT.
So what is your claim ? That Barr suppressed evidence of Trump’s evidence of the obstruction of INJUSTICE ?
Lets be clear – crossfire Huricane, and its cohorts and progeny – including the entire SC investigation, Rested on a HOAX.
Worse the FBI, DOJ and SC Knew they were a HOAX from the beginning.
When government is criminal, there can be no crime in obstructing it.
Not that there ever was anything resembling actual obstruction – whether the investigation was legitimate or not.
Those are not facts. The Mueller Report gathered facts, presenting them to a grand jury.
To understand what happened, you need to understand three federal laws: 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (obstruction of justice), § 1519 (spoliation of evidence), and § 1001 (lying to the Feds during an investigation). These are stand-alone crimes, applicable regardless of whether any underlying crime can be proven. This was why Flynn was justly prosecuted, and why Mueller testified that these criminal acts (see Vol. 2) kept him from establishing the extent of the Russia links, which may or may not be crimes. See, Mueller Missed the Crime: Trumpʼs Campaign Coordinated With Russia, https://www.thedailybeast.com/robert-mueller-missed-the-crime-trumps-campaign-coordinated-with-russia
You may recall from the testimony (and fevered reporting) that Paul Manafort, who was in debt up to his eyeballs to Oleg Deripaska, offered to work for Trump for free (an obvious red flag). And according to cooperating witness Rick Gates (“schemes hatched in Hell seldom have angels for witnesses”), Manafort gave his precious internal polling data to known KGB agent Konstantin Kilimnik.
What use he would have for it is not altogether clear, but we do know that the Russian troll farms could have used it. And obviously, Mueller wanted to talk to Kilimnik. But he couldn’t, because Trump traded Javelin missiles for letting him scurry back to Russia. Ukraine, Seeking U.S. Missiles, Halted Cooperation With Mueller Investigation
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/world/europe/ukraine-mueller-manafort-missiles.html. That is a textbook case of obstruction of justice.
“Coverup General” Barr covered up Trump’s crimes, but both the Senate Intel Committee and several judges have filled in the gaps. Trump-Russia is proven, at least with respect to Manafort.
Spin by RW columnists ≠ facts.
No, I do not need to understand 3 or 12 or 27 laws – as you wish to mangle them.
Only one thing needs understood – it is not a crime to obstruct a lawless investigation – EVER.
It is a crime to conduct one.
Manafort could have given polling data to Putin that would not be a crime.
Konstantin was a long time assistant to Manafort . No one has ever demonstrated that Manafort had any knowledge that he worked for the Russians.
But to clear things up – Konstantin was an asset for the US state department.
“In September 2015, senior Department of Justice (DOJ) official Bruce Ohr and some FBI agents met in New York with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to seek the Russian billionaire’s help on organized crime investigations. The meeting was facilitated — though not attended — by British intelligence operative Christopher Steele.
In 2012, Steele’s private firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, was hired as a subcontractor by a law firm working for Deripaska, who then headed Russia’s largest aluminum company. Steele’s firm was asked to do research to help the law firm defend a lawsuit filed against Deripaska by a business rival.”
Do you enjoy being Wrong ?
The only russian collusion that has been proven – is between democrats – such as Biden or the Clinton’s and russia.
Trump made Deripaska PNG.
You left wing nuts have the most bizarre logic – So Trump gave Javelin missles to Ukraine – something Obama and Biden refused to do until Russia invaded,
And magically arming Ukraine somehow helped Russia
If deripaska was “colluding” with Trump/Russia – why would Trump need to give Ukraine weapons that they intended to use against Russia, in order to get Deripaska safely to Russia.
Wouldn’t it have been easier, less expensive, and less irratating to trump’s purported ally Russia – to just ask Putin or Deripaska to return to Russia ?
Do you read what you write before posting ?
Kilimnik. The case has been made in official reports and court opinions. Kilimnik was being held by Ukraine. Trump traded Javelins for letting him go. That is what is called soliciting a bribe.
But I would have to chain your sorry tail down and force you to review the evidence, Clockwork Orange-style, to get you to consider it.
You would rather sodomize your daughter’s corpse than betray your Pwecious TwumpyBear! I can’t fix that.
Is english your first language ?
Regardless, as best as I can sort your allegations they are false.
Kliminick is dead end.
“But I would have to chain your sorry tail down and force you to review the evidence, Clockwork Orange-style, to get you to consider it.”
All you would have to do is be actually right. Which you pretty much never are.
Kliminick may or may not be a russian spy, He may or may not be a US double agent. He may or may not have been given polling data from manafort. Manafort may or may not have known any of this. But assuming the worst case – that he was a spy and was given polling data – that is not a crime. And it is 10,000 miles short of proving collusion.
And that is your BEST case.
“You would rather sodomize your daughter’s corpse than betray your Pwecious TwumpyBear! I can’t fix that.”
When someone shows you who they are – beleive them, the first time.
No Mueller did not gather facts. You do not seem to know what a fact is.
The Mueller report is chock full of inuendo. That is not FACTS.
The FACT is the Investigation had DIED before Mueller was appointed – and those involved KNEW that.
Despite conducting an illegal investigation and being given everything he wanted, Mueller found NOTHING!
I would note that Grand Juries presentations are not FACTS, there is no judge, there is no adversarial attorney.
A DA or USADA can present a baloney sandwhich to a Grandjury.
They can present whatever they want, and they need not explain tot he GJ why what they present is not evidence, not addmissible, not FACT.
You do not seem to understand what a crime is.
It is not a crime to sell or give away something that is yours.
It is not a crime even if you sell or give it to a sychopath or Russian agent (or US state department agent).
Your inability to guess why others do what they do with what is theirs – does not make their actions criminal.
Nor do you have a right to know what other people do, or why they do it.
One of the reasons that investigations without legitimate predicate are so loathsome – and illegal, is that investigation is ALWAYS about violating others rights by force.
Mueller hounded Papadoulis into pleading to lying to an FBI agent – but ordinary people do not owe FBI agents answers to their questions.
Government only entitled to violate the rights of individuals to demand information where there is reasonable cause to beleive a crime has been committed.
When that reasonable cause no longer exists – which in the case of the Collusion delusion is about October 2016 When the FBI realized the Steele Dossier and Alpha bank nonsense were a hoax, it is law enforcement using force to violate peoples rights that is the crime.
Mueller was never running a legitimate investigation and never running a legal one.
A recent Bill Barr interview on that was excellent. Mueller – who was a personal friend, was also a tremendous disappointment to Barr. Barr was aware as AG that the predicate for the Collusion Delussion investigate had died BEFORE Mueller was appointed, and that he never should have been appointed. Barr noted given the facts that Mueller must have found quickly – it was his obligation to come out PUBLICLY and EARLY and state unequivocally there was no there, there.
But he did not – Barr attibutes that to the army of politicized democrats in his team and the fact that the FBI agents involved in the initial corrupt probe remained with Mueller.
Barr directed Mueller to wrap things up – which he did not. To produce a report – without any Grand Jury material so that it could be released publicly immediately. Mueller failed at both, and then misrepresented the law in numerous areas.
More recently a legal memo – that the left expected to malign Barr was made public – completely exonerating Barr.
This was the DOJ’s legal counsel advice on obstruction – which Barr followed and Mueller ignored.
Counsel indicated that they had been unable to find a prosecution for obstruction anywhere ever where there was not also a prosecution of an underlying crime.
Innocent people profess their innocence. They rant and rail, they make accusations, sometimes even threats.
We do not hold innocent people criminally accountable for railing at investigations.
That is our history and that is our law, and that is the only moral law that is possible.
No the Senate intell committee did not fill in any gaps. They included stupid inuendo unspported by facts – to apease democrats.
They provided no evidence of wrong doing.
Judges do not “fill in the gaps” – they are judges – not investigators. nor prosecutors.
Citing misconduct by judges to support your arguments is just stupid.
No one cares whatr you do not want to hear – you can not hear.
Obama’s docs are in a former grocery store near his home.
Bill Clinton’s audio tapes recorded at the white house while he was president – are in his possession – not NARA’s not the US governments, because according to Obama appointee Judge Amy Jackson – and Article II S1 of the constitution – they belong to the president if he so chooses, and congress can not change that by law, only by amending the constitution.
I know that the law as something that can not be fudged to suit your ideology or whatever ends you desire is an alien concept for you.
But it is a requirement for the rule of law.
It is what we strive vigilantly to acheive,
Because the rule of man, not law, is unstable, bloody, and bad for everyone.
Stop lying. It’s what you Christians do.
Obama’s non-classified records are under the sole control of the Archivist. As they are unclassified, they do not need elaborate security protocols. I’d imagine that an old grocery store could be made secure enough.
The Clinton tapes were an example of a de minimis rule. As the tapes included recordings of telephone calls, they are potential public records. But as they mostly involved recording of.a personal interview, they could be and would be seen by the law as a personal record. Have your wife explain “slippery slope/limiting principle” arguments to you.
The rule of law is a rule of reason.
I do not lie.
“It’s what you Christians do.”
Did I ever say I was a christian ?
“Obama’s non-classified records are under the sole control of the Archivist.”
Nope. Please read the ABJ ruling.
“As they are unclassified, they do not need elaborate security protocols. I’d imagine that an old grocery store could be made secure enough.”
Assumes facts not in evidence. There are millions of documents in that grocery store. There are likely 10’s of thousands that are classified.
It is likely that 99.999% have not been looked at since 2016.
Just as it is unlikely that most of the boxes at MAL have been looked at since 2021.
I have tens of thousands of documents from my father’s estate. I have only looked at a handfule.
“The Clinton tapes were an example of a de minimis rule. As the tapes included recordings of telephone calls, they are potential public records. But as they mostly involved recording of.a personal interview, they could be and would be seen by the law as a personal record. Have your wife explain “slippery slope/limiting principle” arguments to you.”
Please actually read the case and the law and quit making things up.
And please quit pretending that trying to bend everything to fit your narrative is reasonable inferences.
“The rule of law is a rule of reason.”
Reason hopefully drives us in creating law.
But the rule of law is following the law as it is, not as we wish it to be.
Reason is what drives us to CHANGE the law.
If we choose to make law we must enforce the law we make.
That is why the law must always be read NARROWY regarding the power of government, and broadly regarding the rights of individuals – because otherwise we are all criminals.
Enforcing bad law is one of the more important means to purging bad law.
Either it will be found unconstitutional,
or it will be sufficiently heinous that we get it repealed.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
Attr George Washington.
You may not like this, But the legal presumption is the attorney’s who signed verifications were telling the truth.
You are actually obligated to prove they are lying – not merely assume it.
And thus far – the deep lack of credibility is with the WH, the DOJ and the FBI.
We have an FBI office and collection of agents that has been involved in significant misconduct – including lying and manufacturing evidence before. We have an FBI office that – lied – all the way through to FBI director Comey to the FISA court..
We have an administration that has lied constantly and failed even more.
We have an administration that has lied about targeting parents concerned about the education of their kids.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is not like Biden and the left did not lie repeatredly to get elected.
It is not like they did not just ignore election laws they did not like.
It is not like they did not have the full complicity of big tech, big business, and the media.
It is not like there is reason to trust any of these people.
For over a week we have heard that the White House was not involved.
Now we learn incontrovertably they not only were in this from the start – but that they instigated it.
Given a choice between the FBI, DOJ, and WH lying, and Trump’s attorney’s – this is easy.
We have no evidence Trump’s attorney’s have ever lied. Much less under oath.
We have plenty of evidence that FBI/DOJ/WH lie all the time – like for all of the past week.
You’re kidding, right?
The magistrate has two pieces of information: an affidavit, and another affidavit effectively asserting that the first affiant lied. That is gracious plenty for a search warrant.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
What little we have stinks worse than the FISA warrant – and interestingly involves the same people in DOJ/FBI that lied to the FISA court.
When you make assertions – if you can not actually cite your sources – could you atleast use enough nouns so that it is possible to tell what you are talking about.
“an affidavit, and another affidavit effectively asserting that the first affiant lied.”
Can I assume the first “affadivit” is the verification provided by Trump’s lawyers ?
Your writing is so unspecific it is heard to tell.
What does “effectively asserting” – either you are claiming someone lied or you are not.
If you have to add weasle words – YOU are not to be trusted.
What is the lie you are alleging ?
What is the basis for claiming that was a lie – Some saying it is a lie is NOT enough
I can say you are a peodophile – that does not make you one.
You do not seem to understand what constituties evidence.
But that is self evident in your inability to produce EVIDENCE that John Solomon has lied or even been wrong in his reporrting.
You do not prove John Solomon is wrong in a claim by siting people who say he is wrong.
You do so by citing EVIDENCE.
It is reasonable to distruct the FBI and DOJ – not because someone SAYS they are wrong,
but because the very same agents and attorney’s have perpitrated frauds on the court before.
Interestingly, neither the media nor Donald Trump have commented on the letter that Merrwreck Garland left for him at the Mar-a-Largo estate after the FBI departed from their raid with their haul. As a public service, here it is:
In view of your low grade, abnormal personal behavoir I will not dignify your name with either a Mr. or a president. And, your last name calls to mind only the type of Trump that wants to be like King Henry the VIII and his countless acts of heinousness and immoral conduct lower than that of a beast.
Trump, look into your heart. You know you are a complete fraud and a great liability to all of us Whities. Black people in this country have enough frauds of their own but I am sure they don’t have one at this time that is any where near your equal. You are no Amerikan and you know it. I repeat you are a colossal fraud and an evil, vicious one at that. You could not believe in God and act as you do. Clearly you don’t believe in any personal moral principles.
Trump, like all frauds your end is approaching. You could have been our greatest leader. You, even at an early age have turned out to be not a leader but a dissolute, abnormal moral imbecile. We will now have to depend on our older leaders like Peter Szrzok, Christoipher Wray, and myself, people of character, and thank God we have others like us.
But you are done. Your business akomplishment and all the loot you’ve stolen will not save you. Trump, I repeat you are done.
No person can overcome facts, not even a fraud like yourself. Lend your sexually psychotic ear to the enclosed recording we made of you with Mulania and this pervurted smooching. We also have recordings of you saying bad things about me and other heroes in Amerika.
You will find yourself and in all your dirt, filth, evil and moronic talk exposed on the record for all time. I repeat — no person can argue successfully against facts. You are finished. You will find on the record for all time talking with your filthy, dirty, evil supporters, male and females giving expression with you to your hidious abnormalities. And some of them to even pretend to be ministers of the Gospel. Satan could not do more. What incredible evilness. It is all there on the record, your evil talk of making Amerika grate again.
Listen to yourself you filthy, abnormal animal. You are on the record. You have been on the record — all your heinous acts, your attacks on our beloved Deep State extending far into the past. This one is but a tiny sample. You will understand this. Yes, from your various evil playmates on the east coast to and others on the west coast and outside the country you are on the record. Trump you are done.
The Amerikan public, the beloved Democrats and RINOs — Protestant, Catholic, Mulsims, and Jews will know you for what you are — an evil, abnormal beast. So will others who have backed you. You are done.
Trump, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason, it has definite practical significant. You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation.
Too bad he didn’t. T**** deserves that rebuke. I’m good with him becoming a permanent resident of Riker’s Island.
According to John Sullivan, Co-Host of “Just the News”: Trump Lawer Evan Corcoran was informed by Acting National Archivist Debra Steidel “that she had the blessing of Biden to overrule those privilege claims and share all materials requested by the DOJ and FBI.” Biden administration believes a Watergate era ruling suggested Biden had the authority to waive Trump’s privileges:
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, [SCOTUS 433 U.S. 425 (1977)]. It “strongly suggests that a former President may not successfully assert executive privilege ‘against the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked. That ruling, however, was issued under an earlier predecessor law for presidential records.
This openend the door to instigate the criminal probe into alleged mishandling of documents, allowing the FBI to review evidence retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. “Within a couple of weeks of Wall’s letter to Corocoran, the DOJ sent a grand jury subpoena to Trump’s team demanding the return of any remaining national security documents, which precipitated a voluntary visit by the FBI to Mar-a-Lago on June 3, when agents picked a small amount of materials Trump’s lawyers said were responsive to the subpoena Two months later, the FBI escalated again, seeking a search warrant to raid the Trump estate on 8/8/22 
J. William Leonard, appointed to ISOO-Director by “W”, shares WH opinion that the incoming administration can revoke the decission of the outgoing administration. 
On 9/15/22, “President Biden will host the United We Stand Summit at the White House to counter the corrosive effects of hate-fueled violence on our democracy and public safety, highlight the response of the Biden-Harris Administration and communities nationwide to these dangers, and put forward a shared, bipartisan vision for a more united America”
The debate over executive priviledge is a sideshow – Except that it demonstrates that the WH was driving this from the start.
What is fundimental is that no matter what the courts might decide over issues of priviledge, or anything else,
One administration can not retroactively made the conduct of the prior administration criminal.
Oddly the Biden administration’s broad claims of power actually reinforce Trump’s claims. For Biden to have th power to reverse Trump executive decisions – Trump had to have had the power to make those decisions.
VOTERS decide the Outcome of Elections, Justice is in the Eye of the Beholder,
For me, all this is politica, Justice is used for a narrative only!
Lets assume 15% of electorate are undecided: How Do you think will voters react when they hear that President Biden, saying he wasn’t involved and will host a “United We Stand Summit” at WH, “waiving Trump’s previous claims of executive privilege”?
From a legal POV (and please don’t shoot the messenger): “One administration can not retroactively made the conduct of the prior administration criminal.” Quoting Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, [SCOTUS 433 U.S. 425 (1977)]., DoJ got the search warrant approved and the raid was on its way.
Biden doesn’t need to waive anything.
Trump cannot assert Executive Privilege against the Executive Branch.
President Trumps Tenure 20.1.2017-201.2022.
Constitution Artikel II, Section 1, Clause 1 Executive Vesting Clause, 1st sentence. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
That only gives him the lawful authority to administer the law of the land. It does not make him a dictator.
I do not accept your moral relativism
While I am not a utilitarian – the utilitarians atleast have a compelling argument – one that must be true of any system to survive and thrive.
It must work.
Look arround. Leftism does not work. Not for the Bolshevicks, not for Mao, not for Democrats or Biden.
You can logically construct morality and justice if you accept Free Will.
There are 3 alternatives to Free Will. None of those are appealing – even to leftists.
Even the absence of absolutes, does not preclude reaching a single truth with an incredibly high probability.
Even in a relative world – all alternatives are not even close to equal.
Religious Rightardism doesn’t work, either. I’m a big fan of facts and reasonable inferences.
Lawdog, if you are as bigger fan of facts as you say, then get your facts straight about Solomon and stop passing off links you can’t defend.
Maybe I just caught Solomon on a week of bad days, but I have reached the conclusion that he is more of a partisan hack than a reporter, and that he plays fast and loose with the facts. Giuliani was running a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine with the help of Solomon. He probably qualified as a co-conspitrator; reporters don’t get that close to a story. He’s not quite Alex Jones or TASS, but I have reached the conclusion that he is an unreliable source and unethical, and I see no evidence to warrant reconsideration of that assessment.
“Maybe I just caught Solomon on a week of bad days, but I have reached the conclusion that he is more of a partisan hack than a reporter”
Lawdog, Solomon chooses what he is going to investigate. The MSM didn’t investigate Hunter Biden, so there was a gap in our news. The MSM also decided not to dig in about Ukraine. That was another gap in our news that Solomon filled up. His reporting has been among the best seen and is vital unless you think the President of the United States should be without scrutiny. Did the MSM scrutinize Biden, the nominee, before the election? No. Why do you trust them?
Try attacking his facts on Ukraine. The Hill wanted to but failed, and the one piece of fact they put in their long hit piece was wrong, filled with journalistic malpractice.
“Giuliani was running a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine with the help of Solomon.”
Assuming that to be true, which it isn’t, what does that have to do with Solomon’s reporting? Nothing. Go to Just the News and read only the reports by Solomon. Then look at his documentation. Tell me an investigative reporter from the Times or WaPo that provides so much information regularly.
“He probably qualified as a co-conspitrator; reporters don’t get that close to a story.”
You add the word probably because you have no factual basis to back that statement up. He didn’t act as a co-conspirator. He is a reporter, and an honest one, even if he finds proof of potential corruption of the Biden family.
“He’s not quite Alex Jones or TASS,”
That comment is nothing more than slime. These emotional outbursts you have do not qualify as fact or intelligent debate. Start providing facts and evidence, and quit sliming.
” I have reached the conclusion that he is an unreliable source and unethical”
You have just told us that your conclusions are based on emotions and of no value. You haven’t provided one thing that Solomon did that breached journalistic ethics or that he didn’t provide truthfully, based on facts. That tells us a lot about you and nothing about Solomon.
“I see no evidence to warrant reconsideration of that assessment.”
Of course not. You don’t base what you say (at least about Solomon) on facts. All you have shown is that you draw conclusions based on your fantasies, not reality.
SM: “The MSM didn’t investigate Hunter Biden, so there was a gap in our news. The MSM also decided not to dig in about Ukraine.”
As for L’affaire Ukrainienne, the entire “case against Joe” rests on an easily refuted assertion. When sent to Kyiv, he was given orders to demand the removal of the hopelessly corrupt Shokin; everyone from Barack Obama to our State Department to the World Bank to our allies to #RussiaRon Johnson agreed that he had to go. Joe Biden did what he was ordered to do, and our government had every right to demand — to require Ukraine to show Shokin the door as a condition precedent to our supplying them with $1B in aid. Joe had NO discretion. So, how could he have acted corruptly?
Yes, Hunter is a grifter. And yes, he accepted a seat on Burisma’s board. He was a Yale-trained securities lawyer with 20+ years of relevant experience, and who had served on a large corporate board. We don’t know how much he was paid for it, but Rosemont Seneca was a contractor, and it is not uncommon for an executive with a contractor to sit on a corporate board. The figure of $50,000 a month may have been for their services, and it is probable that they did something worth that amount. Board members are usually compensated for their work, and there is credible evidence that “Burisma members never tried to use Hunter Biden to curry favor with the administration of Barack Obama when Joe Biden was Obama’s vice president,” and that HB “carried out research and brought a unique American perspective to the company, including in the areas of corporate governance, capital markets and gas drilling equipment, where Americans are world leaders.” Polish ex-president defends Bidens, Burisma, https://www.foxnews.com/world/polish-ex-president-defends-bidens-burisma. In short, President Kwasniewski observed that “He was useful for us because he knew something that we didn’t know.”
Yes, he was named to Burisma’s Board because his name was Biden. A lot of board members are picked for their names and prominence, even in America. But he was not a Neil Bush or Ivanka Trump. He actually had credentials.
Your case depends on the assertions that (1) Viktor Shokin was an honest prosecutor, and (2) that firing him would have helped Hunter Biden in some way. “But there is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups, that wanted to see Shokin fired. They include the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform.” Why Was Ukraine’s Top Prosecutor Fired?, https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html. [Radio Free Europe, during Donald Trump’s reign]; EU hails sacking of Ukraine’s prosecutor Viktor Shokin,
irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190, Viktor Shokin: The inside story, independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/viktor-shokin-ukraine-prosecutor-trump-biden-hunter-joe-investigation-impeachment-a9147001.html
Several quotes from the RFE article but the second assertion to bed. “Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption activists with knowledge of the matter argue that the timeline of developments in the Burisma case and Shokin’s stint as chief prosecutor simply does not fit the narrative being put forward by Trump and his allies. … Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Kyiv-based Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), told RFE/RL that Shokin “dumped important criminal investigations on corruption associated with [former President Viktor] Yanukovych, including the Burisma case. … “Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case,” Kaleniuk said.”
With respect, it appears that the MSM not only “covered” it, but stuck a fork in it. Solomon continued to push his Russian-fueled political narrative under the fraudulent cover of “journalism.” But you defend him because he says what you want to hear.
You might not have been made aware but this web log only permits two hyperlinks per comment. I edited your comment to allow it to post by removing the protocol header of the two extra links. If you would like the readership to review more than two hyperlinks, this may be accomplished by submitting multiple comments of two of fewer links per each.
Lawdog, you seem to read only what you find agreeable. If you think there was no hanky panky committed, why did the MSM first declare the Biden laptop as Russian disinformation? Once you found out it wasn’t, you should have been more suspicious than you are.
What you write tells us nothing, but the letters, pictures, and transcripts tell us a lot.
You haven’t proven one thing about Solomon which demonstrates how soft your investigative abilities are. Writing a long narrative without focus only shows how you can write many words without proof or the ability to put things together. Instead, you latch on to the first thing that suits what your fantasies demand.
“As for L’affaire Ukrainienne, the entire “case against Joe” rests on an easily refuted assertion. When sent to Kyiv, he was given orders”
Nope – his OWN remarks refute this claim.
“to demand the removal of the hopelessly corrupt Shokin;”
And yet, no actual evidence of corruption on Shokin’s part exists.
He lives modestly in retirement, he is in the orbit of no oligarchs.
If Shokin was corrupt – what is the actual evidence ?
“everyone from Barack Obama to our State Department to the World Bank to our allies to #RussiaRon Johnson agreed that he had to go.”
All based on idiotic lies produced by people that Biden is enthralled to.
“Joe Biden did what he was ordered to do”
Except that is NOT what Joe Biden says.
“and our government had every right to demand”
And no what documents from our State department say.
“to require Ukraine to show Shokin the door as a condition precedent to our supplying them with $1B in aid.”
Again not what anything from the US state department says.
“Joe had NO discretion.”
And Not what Joe Biden said.
In fact he said the opposite.
He Bragged it was his decision, and that he expected that Obama would back him up.
“So, how could he have acted corruptly?”
Because Shokin was not corrupt, Burisma benefited, Hunter Benfited and Joe Biden benefited.
Then rinse and repeat everywhere Joe Biden went. And everytime Hunter brought some oligarch or the like to the white house or to VP Joe.
If you had 1/10000th of what exists on Biden, on a Trump they would all be in orange jumpsuits for life.
There is massive evidence of the Biden’s corruption.
Apparently the amerian people think differently.
Contractors do not sit on boards, People do.
Can you get anything straight.
You are grossly ignorant of the facts.
You really need to read John Solomon in 2018 – before the election, before the hunter biden laptop.
Or more accurately you need to read the primary source documents he obtained from Ukraine, From Rosemont Senecca,
and Primarily from FOIA requests of the US State Department.
These REPEATEDLY falsify every claim you make, and all of this was BEFORE the hunter Biden laptop, before Trump’s call to Zelensky.
It has always been necescary to defame Solomon – because long before anyone else he boxed the Biden’s in and established corruption
“Your case depends on the assertions that”
“(1) Viktor Shokin was an honest prosecutor”
While there remains to this day no actual proof that Shokin was corrupt,
and a great deal of evidence that he was not,
That is NOT critical.
Shokin could be corrupt as dirt.
All that is necescary for a crime is for VP Biden to have used the power of his office for the benefit of his son.
That is it.
Whether Shokin is or is not corrupt – and the actual evidence is that he is not,
Whether Burisma benefited or not – and the evidence is that they did.
All that matters is that VP Biden’s actions benefited his Son.
I would note that
VP Biden was barred by federal ethics laws from official acts that even involved his family – whether legitimate or not.
And that the Obama State department notified the VP’s office of this repeatedly,
and that the Obama whitehouse was concerned that Biden’s shenanigans were going to get it in trouble,
“that firing him would have helped Hunter Biden in some way.”
“But there is a long list of Western organizations, governments, and diplomats, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption groups,”
Yes, there were lots of corrupt organizations that wanted Shokin fired.
This is typical of left wing nuts.
If Democrats proposed the “All puppies go to heaven act” – those of you on the left would rush to support it,
and if it was up to you – it would pass unanimously – before anyone read that it required euthanizing every dog in the world.
You think if it sounds good it must be good.
“that wanted to see Shokin fired. They include the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the U.S. government, foreign investors, and Ukrainian advocates of reform.”
No one disagrees that lots of corrupt people and organizations wanted Shokin fired.
Ukraine was and still is one of the more corrupt countries in the world. Important people from Russia, the EU, the US, the IMF, the World bank, …. all were involvedin that corruption.
How is it that you think corruption works ?
Even today – though I GENERALLY support the US support of Ukraine fighting Russia, we already KNOW that vast amounts of that money is lining peoples pockets. People in the US, in Ukraine, and arround the world.
Some credible estimates are that as little as 1/3 of the actual $’s sent to ukraine are getting to where they are supposed to.
Look arround the US – a substantial portion of the “covid aide” disappeared.
Government spending of all kinds everywhere in the world is notoriously corrupt. Ukraine undoubtedly more so than eslewhere.
But your arguments presume that all those you say wanted Shokin out did so because HE was corrupt, rather than because THEY were.
Since when did the left trust the IMF, the World Bank, …. ?
Actually your RFE article Timeline is incorrect – as demonstrated by US state department documents.
The Burisma investigation was ongoing at the moment Shokin was sacked. \
Further Hunter Biden was a SUBJECT if not a TARGET of that investigation and was to be interviewed By Shokin regarding Burisma 48hrs after Shokin was sacked.
Again – rather then buying what idiot left wing nut sources drowning in confirmation bias report from either the target of the investigation – or those likely to be investigated next.
Try reading primary source materials.
Hunter Biden’s and his attorney’s emails to the State Department.
Hunter Biden’s and his attorney’s emails to the Ukraining prosecutors.
Emails from the US state department to the VP’s office begging them to get either Joe Biden or Hunter Biden out of involvment in Ukraine before this exploded on the Obama administration.
These and much much more are in John Solomon’s archives.
As I noted before – some sources are credible. Others are not.
You keep trying to present as evidence the opinions of people distant from the actual events
When we have primary source documentation.
We have what those involved were communicating with each other at the time.
You are litterally citing the kind of people who said that BLM protests were “mostly peaceful” – while police stations were burning in the background.
Get a CLUE.
Start paying attention to FACTS – not what people say.
You will note, I have NOT ONCE quoted John Solomon.
What I have done is provided the FACTS, from the primary source documents he was able to pry out of Ukraine, Rosemont Senneca, the US state department, …..
“With respect, it appears that the MSM not only “covered” it, but stuck a fork in it.”
No, what they did was “cover it up”.
“Solomon continued to push his Russian-fueled political narrative under the fraudulent cover of “journalism.” But you defend him because he says what you want to hear.”
No I defend him because he sticks to facts from primary sources.
You have not cited a single primary source.
The press – now echoed by you, and we now learn driven by the FBI rants about “Russian disinformation”.
Are communications between the US state deparment an rosemont Senneca, or the Ukraine Prosecutors, or the VP’s office aquired through FOIA requests “russian disinformation” ?
Did Russia have a mole in the US state department planting documents that eventually were released through FOIA requests ?
If not, then it is self evident the “russian disinformation” nonsense is LIES, and those spreading it are LIARS,
and these are the people YOU are relaying on.
Lets remind you what has come to light just this week.
FBI Agents came to Twitter and FB and Zuckerberg Directly and pressured them to Censor the coming NY Post article on the Hunter Biden Laptop claiming it was Russian disinformation.
Are you going to debate that ?
Are you honestly going to stand behind the claim that the laptop was “russian disinformation” ?
I would remind you that the FBI had the laptop since 2019 atleast. They KNEW whether it was legitimate or not.
Pretty much everyone knows what the FBI knew in 2019 – and Oct 2020 – that the Laptop data was legitimate, that it was NOT a russian plant.
That means the FBI LIED – to Twitter, and Zuckerberg, and to the rest of us.
And that they did so to manipulate the outcome of an election.
These are the people you trust ?
The very best defense of the FBI is that they are so bad at their jobs that they actually thought the Hunter Biden laptop was faked by the Russians. If that is true – why do we have an FBI ?
Put simply – you can make any claim you wish here. What you can not do is make this go away and not be very Bad.
To this point I have defended Solomon with Solomon’s own primary sources. In 2019 and much of 2020 – that was all we had and it was damning.
It is not 2020 anymore – it is 2022, and we – the public now know what the FBI knew in 2019. that the laptop is real,
that the information on it is legitimate.
And that John Solomon;’s reporting on The Biden Ukraine affair is both true and only the tip of the iceberg.
That wherever Joe Biden went in the world – Hunter followed, that Hunter profited by selling the office of the Vice President to oligarchs, and evil doers accross the world, that Joe personally benefited from Hunters actions.
That Joe was fully aware of Hunters business, that he was a part of that business, and a part of the profits.
I have no doubt that other presidents and other politicians were more corrupt than the Biden’s.
But there is no doubt that we have never seen so much evidence of all kinds of corruption involving a US president.
And this permiates EVERYTHING.
You can stick your finger in most any corrupt mess in the past decade and find mostly the same players.
Most of the same people at the FBI involved in Uranium One, in the Clinton espionage investigation, in the Collusion Delusion, in the investigation of Hunter Biden, in the Ukraine coverup, in the phony leaks to the press that have been manipulating them for years.
These are the people you expect the rest of us to trust ?
I do not trust John Solomon because he is conservative – I am not conservative.
I trust john solomon because he is correct, and has the primary sources to prove it.
You are still idiotically fighting over Solomon and his early reporting on the Biden’s in Ukraine – as if the Hunter Biden laptop has never surfaced and does not document deal after deal that Hunter made selling out the power of the office of the vice president for profit for himself and Joe to often the same people or groups or those affiliated with who you use as purported proof that there is not there there.
SM: “You have just told us that your conclusions are based on emotions and of no value. You haven’t provided one thing that Solomon did that breached journalistic ethics or that he didn’t provide truthfully, based on facts.”
No, I just haven’t made the case TO YOU in a fulsome manner. I did so in a separate message, but it is awaiting moderation — probably on account of the many links I added.
SM: “The MSM didn’t investigate Hunter Biden, so there was a gap in our news. The MSM also decided not to dig in about Ukraine.”
With respect, it appears that the MSM not only “covered” it, but stuck a fork in it. In my other message, I cited stories from Radio Free Europe, Fox, the Irish Times, and the UK Independent. I could have added many others, but it would have been cumulative. The New York Times. The Financial Times. And there is plenty more on the story. E.g., Demonstrators protest Shokin’s firing of anti-corruption prosecutors, https://www.kyivpost.com/ multimedia/photo/anticorruption-meeting-410708. Ukraine police close Biden probe initiated by disgraced prosecutor, https://www.unian.info/politics/biden-probe-ukraine-police-close-
[delete space] investigation-initiated-by-shokin-11214881.html. This story was dead two years ago.
Despite this, Solomon continued to push his Russian-fueled political narrative under the fraudulent cover of “journalism.” But you defend him because he says what you want to hear.
I’m looking at a lot of evidence here. Solomon is no more a reliable reporter as Shokin was an honest prosecutor.
Lawdog, you talk too much and can’t seem to focus.
Provide the data and evidence that Solomon is tainted (your word). Stop with writing a novel. Start listing your proof.
You can’t. If you could, you already would have done so.
“Religious Rightardism doesn’t work, either.”
Not a fan or member of the religious right.
They are just less dangerous than the religious left.
“I’m a big fan of facts”
And yet the few facts you provide – falsify your own claims.
“and reasonable inferences.”
You may be a fan, but you are not good at reasonable inference.
I too am a fan of reasonable inferences – but clearly that means something radically different to me than you.
something that is highly unlikely is not a reasonable inference.
We do not live in a pure meritocracy. Every intelligent, skilled person does not succeed.
But on the whole those who fail constantly tend not be be intelligent or skilled,
and those that sucede repeatedly are with certainty both intelligent and skilled.
I do not like Trump – and often he says stupid things, and does things I think are wrong.
But he is NOT stupid, he could not have gotten where he is if he was. ‘
He is also incredibly self interested – all highly successful people are.
Among other things that means they are near certain not to commit serious crimes absent great rewards and very low probability of being caught.
Hillary did not beleive she was going to get caught. And history teaches her that she will not be held accountable if caught.
Conversely Trump is subject to atleast as much scrutiny as Clinton, and never gets the benefits of the doubts Clinton does.
Trump is a magnet for incredible scrutiny – and has been most of his life.
He is just not going to do the stupid things the left accuses him of – BECAUSE he KNOWS he will
be put under a microscope and lose every benefit of every doubt.
I do not beleive Trump is a good person. I beleive Trump is a person who knows well what he can and can not get away with.
And the claims the left constantly make against him all fall into things he could not possibly get away with and that he knows it.
False, and an admission of ignorance. Executive orders have been around since George Washington, and have ZERO relevance to the theft of classified documents.
Executive orders have been arround forever.
Please read these EO’s rather than continue to make a fool of yourself.
What is a classified document, how they are handled, who has access, are ALL determined by EXECUTIVE ORDER.
Is there a reason that you left wing nuts insist on making ludicrously stupid arguments ?
Must we argue over whether the sun will rise tomorow ?
Within the constraints of the constitution, Constitutional laws, Executive Orders are the presidential directives to the federal government that dictate HOW executive power is to be excercised.
The power to classify or declassify resides with the president.
The power to decide what is classified resides with the president.
The power to decide WHO has access to classified material resides with the president.
The president can as Trump has said – just speak declassification into being, or just remove classified documents from a classified setting defacto declassifying them. ANY PRESIDENT. And that has happened many times in my lifetime.
The president can also – through executive orders put in writing the rules for classifed documents.
Or anyting else regarding the operation of the executive branch constrained only by the constitutional powers of the president and constitutional laws.
The Obama EO is the currently in effect presidential directive regarding classified documents.
Biden can rescind it or revise it – but not retroactively. Biden can personally deviate from it, but unless he rescinds or revises it no one else in the executive branch can.
It is binding on everyone in the executive branch except the current president.
That dog won’t hunt, either. POTUS does not have unlimited declassification authority. The Espionage Act of 1917 (and in particular, 18 U.S.C. § 793) criminalizes the mishandling of classes of information; regulations under 12 CFR § 403 systemize the process. Pre-existing EOs are binding on Presidents unless and until rescinded, and if a Trump were to come up with an EO asserting a bat-shit reading of what the rules should be, Congress could reassert their lawful authority.
The President is our C-in-C, but his authority to act in that capacity is ultimately constrained by whatever Congress says the law is. Separation of powers.
“That dog won’t hunt, either”
That dog hunts quite well, it has hunted you down, treed you and is biting your shins.
” POTUS does not have unlimited declassification authority.”
Of course he does.
“The Espionage Act of 1917 (and in particular, 18 U.S.C. § 793) criminalizes the mishandling of classes of information;”
Can not constitutionally apply to the president.
Further “mishandling” is an act. At the very best you have possession – maybe.
You need an actual ACT. You need either Trump Personally or directing others to illegally acquire classified documents – an act that can only occur AFTER Jan 20,2021. Or Trump providing classified documents to people not entitled to access them.
Todate you do not even have proof these are classified documents – the FACT that the FBI/DOJ cited a news article that Kash Patel would publish declassified collusion delusion arguments as part of the affadavit, makes it strongly appear that DOJ was seeking to prevent Trump from making public documents that had been Declassified by EO.
“regulations under 12 CFR § 403 systemize the process.”
CFR 12 is the chapter on banking. There is no section 403. Perhaps you mean something else.
“Pre-existing EOs are binding on Presidents unless and until rescinded”
Again incorrect and irrelevant.
Presidents are not bound by prior EO’s but the rest of the executive is.
Merely acting at odds with an existing EO would narrowly rescind the portion restricting that act.
Irrelevant because the Obama EO that I cited and you now repeatedly refer to supports every claim Trump has made.
“and if a Trump were to come up with an EO asserting a bat-shit reading of what the rules should be, Congress could reassert their lawful authority.”
that would violate separation of powers.
“The President is our C-in-C, but his authority to act in that capacity is ultimately constrained by whatever Congress says the law is.”
“Separation of powers.”
Yes, that is the proof you are wrong.
Congresses primary means of constraining the president in the execution of powers that constitutionally are those of the executive is pretty much limited to controlling the purse.
Congress can not criminalize or even regulate the presidents execution of a power delegated to him by the constitution.
To be clear the constitution does not delegate to presidents infinite power.
But it does delegate this power, and it does not share that power with congress.
John Solomon is a witness in this case. Weeks before Mar-a-Lago search, ex-Trump DOD official vowed to publish classified documents from National Archives, https://abcnews.go.com/US/weeks-mar-lago-search-trump-dod-official-vowed/story?id=88461618 Not exactly a dispassionate and unbiased journalist.
“. . . to publish classified documents . . .”
Except that those “documents” had been declassified by Trump while he was President.
If your goal is to further erode the Left’s credibility, while proving yourself an apologist for petty tyrants — you’re succeeding admirably.
Based on what admissible evidence? I call a hundred witnesses from the Trump orbit testifying that there was no such policy in place — and other people did need to know! — and you call Kash Patel? Transparent post hoc rationalizations rarely carry weight in a courtroom.
Trump’s best defense would have been that he did not know, but that appears to have been obliterated. He was in the knowing possession of stolen property, and refused to disgorge it upon request.
My goal is to defend truth, the rule of law, and individual rights.
I will and have defended the rights of Nazi’s and the KKK
Trump appears to be petty at times.
But real tyranny today is near exclusively the domain of the left.
Some of my hero’s are people like Alan Derschowitz, or Gerry Spense who defended the rights of people who were despised.
My wife is one of the best criminal appellate lawyers in my state – and I am incredibly proud of her.
She defends the rights of the dregs of the earth. Pedophiles, sex offenders, rapists, murders, torturers.
She does this despite the fact that 6 months after we were married she was brutally sexually assaulted for 4 hours.
Because the least rights the worst of us have are the most rights any of us can be assured of.
Have your wife explain Justice Stevens’s Shakespearean Canon. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3698&context=penn_law_review. Law School 101. The first canon of statutory construction is “Read the statute.” The second? “Read the statute.” The third? “READ THE GODDAMNED STATUTE!!!”
Executive orders (“EOs”) are binding on the Executive Department until and unless they are amended or revoked. And the way you revoke an EO is to issue a superseding EO.
The Bush #43 Administration issued and amended EO #12958. Obama amended it in EO #13526. And as Prof. Kedian notes, Trump did not issue an EO amending or revoking it. The Classification Status of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Documents, https://www.lawfareblog.com/classification-status-trumps-mar-lago-documents
Trump respected this process in connection with the declassification of documents relating to the Carter Page FISA warrant. As Fox News reminds us:
“President Trump on Monday ordered the declassification of several key documents related to the FBI investigation of Russian actions during the 2016 presidential election, including 21 pages of an application for a renewed surveillance warrant against former campaign aide Carter Page, and text messages from disgraced FBI figures Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump had ordered the documents released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Justice Department “[a]t the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency.”
The documents to be declassified also include all FBI reports on interviews with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all other applications to surveil Carter Page.” foxnews.com/politics/trump-orders-feds-to-declassify-key-fisa-documents-text-messages-in-fbi-russia-probe.
Trump ordered the DNI to release the documents, and the DNI complied.
If you care about the rule of law, you understand the critical importance of process. “It is not without significance that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are procedural. It is procedure that spells much of the difference between rule by law and rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal justice under law.” Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 179 (1951) (Douglas, J., concurring). Process restrains all public officials.
If there was a standing order, you would expect it to be the subject of an EO. That one does not exist in writing is compelling evidence that it did not exist. Add that to the testimony of a dozen Trump Administration officials, and a trier of fact is substantially certain to conclude that it did not exist.
You cite lots of things that I completely agree with you on that are in fact the very proof that your arguments are WRONG.
Read the constitution,
read the constitution,
read the constitition.
Read Obama’s exceturive order – the entire thing.
Then read it and read it again.
Every single claim I have made – as well as those made by myriads of other actually capable attorneys is based on the constitution – which can not be overridden by EO or law (and in this case isn’t), as well as the Obama EO – which I agree has not been superceded. Though you and your sources apparently can not read it.
I would note as a matter of law, though so far not relevant in this case. EO’s are binding on everyone in the executive branch until revoked save ONE PERSON – the current president. Neither the law, nor executive order – not of prior presidents, not even of the current president themselves can increase or restrict the power of the president beyond what the constitution specifies.
“If you care about the rule of law, you understand the critical importance of process.”
Absolutely – but the actual LAW and constitution STILL comes first.
That too is part of the process
You claim Trump followed THE process in declassifying the carter page warrant.
That is incorrect. Trump followed A process in declassifying the carter page warrant.
Your entire legal complaint – your process claims rest on the false assertion that there is only a single process.
That is FALSE, That is patently false from reading the Obama EO.
Not only does it define multiple processes for various things, but it explicitly asserts that the president (and vice president) are not constrained by the process in the EO.
Though that language is redundant, As has been noted repeatedly before – You can not ammend the constitution by legislation or Executive order.
Powers of the president, belong to the president to act on as they deem fit.
The constraints on the president are the constitutional limits on executive power, as well as the legislated limits on powers conferred on the executive by law.
You are incorrect regarding the Bill of rights.
The Bill of rights is first and foremost about securing individual rights – some civil and some natural.
While the rest of the constitution is about government powers and their limits.
The standard for individual rights is whatever is not explicitly denied is allow.
The standard for government powers is whatever is not explicitly permitted is denied.
That is no procedural.
To the extent that portions of the bill of rights address procedure it is in specifying that while those rights are not absolutely, the governments ability to infringe on them is severaly constrained.
Even there procedure is SECONDARY – the standard for an invasion of privacy and property rights is probable cause.
The procedural portions requires that probable cause is established by Oath.
Procedure is incredibly important. but it is not at the top of the pyramid. It is not even at the second level.
Individual rights – or in this case executive powers are at the top.
Next is the standards that apply – I am sure you will argue that things like reasonable suspicion, probable cause, beyond a reasonable doubt are procedural. They are NOT. They are the standards that procedures must meet.
“If there was a standing order, you would expect it to be the subject of an EO. That one does not exist in writing is compelling evidence that it did not exist.”
That is not merely false – but obviously so. There are myriads of well documented instances of Trump declassifying information merely by acting – by speaking it publicly, or by providing it to someone without clearance.
Nor is that unique to Trump. Every president has done so. Pres. Reagan defacto declassified information regarding the stealth fighter – one of the most classified secrets of the US government at the time, by talking about it is a public speach.
“Add that to the testimony of a dozen Trump Administration officials, and a trier of fact is substantially certain to conclude that it did not exist”
And they will with absolute certainty be overturned on appeal.
This is not even a close case. Your core problem is that this is an issue of law not fact.
Your argument pretends to be about facts, but it makes massive presumptions about law.
There are very real circumstances under which failure to follow explicit procedures is damning.
when government seeks to infringe on an individual right – it absolutely must dot its eye’s and cross its T’s.
In a criminal case – which is what you are refering to – the burden of due process falls entirely on the government.
When the president acts on a power delegated to him by congress – failure to follow procedure might invalidate the presidents action. Failure to follow procedure specified by executive order – will likely doom the action of some underling in the executive branch.
In all these instances procedure serves as a contraint on power to protect against government abuse of power – i.e. infringement on the peoples rights.
The requirements for process (due process is a subset of process) ultimately only exist to protect individual rights and/or to constrian abuse of power.
Declassifying documents is about as far from either as humanly possible.
The constitution give the power to classify and particularly to declassify at whim to the president.
Every president has excercised it as such.
As is typical of the left – your claims ultimately boil down to “But Trump”.
Trump can do whatever other presidents have done.
The burden of proving that a president can not defacto or orally declassify rests with prosecutors.
The burden of proving that Trump did not have a standing order, or that the documents in question were not declassified in some other fashion – such as by the 2018, and 2019 public declasifications and the 2021 Executive order – rests with the government.
The affadavits referencing Kash Patel’s remarks about publishing documents Trump declassified by EO severely undermines the DOJ/FBI/WH and makes is extremely likely this is an abuse of power and a coverup.
The crime is not Trump;s it is the WH/DOJ/FBI’s
You are losing as a matter of law, and in the court of public oppinion.
Aparently you can not read. Patel was going to publish documents that Trump ordered declassified.
This would be a very stupid hill for you to die on.
Even arguing that they were not declassified as ordered – means that DOJ/FBI and the Biden whitehouse are GUILTY of covering up the malfeasance those documents expose.
The very fact that they ever were classified – is ALSO evidence of a coverup.
We saw this as the House and Senate tried to investigate the collusion delussion and the DOJ/FBI hedged and hemmed and hawed and refused to cooperate.
That is called COVERUP.
If you really want to turn this into Patel trying to expose a WH/DOJ/FBI coverup of the colluision delusion – be my guest.
Let me make this easy for you.
If the “classifed” documents we are fighting over are the collusion dellusion documents that Patel threatened to publish,
It is not Trump that is in trouble – it is the WH/DOJ/FBI.
Can you spell COVERUP
“On June 19, former president Donald Trump sent a letter to the National Archives. The subject was not his ongoing dispute with the agency over material he’d removed from the White House and brought to his Mar-a-Lago resort. Instead, he was naming two individuals — former Trump administration official Kash P. Patel and conservative writer John Solomon — as “representatives for access to Presidential records of my administration.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/15/trump-fbi-search-solomon-patel/
As custodians, they play a different role than as reporters. Patel would be a witness at best, and a co-conspirator at worst.
“As custodians, they play a different role than as reporters.”
“Patel would be a witness at best, and a co-conspirator at worst.”
Please keep making my points for me.
So Patel was prepared to expose the Current WH/DOJ/FBI’s efforts to COVERUP prior malfeasance, and crime.
That is your argument ?
If the documents were declassified pursuant to the Obama version of the relevant EO, there is no problem. If he did not, then the documents aren’t declassified. I don’t know all the details, nor do I care. I’ll let the courts sort it out.
“If the documents were declassified pursuant to the Obama version of the relevant EO, there is no problem”
Correct and they were.
“If he did not, then the documents aren’t declassified.”
“I don’t know all the details, nor do I care. I’ll let the courts sort it out.”
But you do care – you keep making false claims.
Trump did comply with the Obama EO.
The Obama EO allowed the president infinite power with respect to classifying and declassifying
But even if it did not an EO can not bind a subsequent president.
EO’s only bind the remained of the executive branch.
The president can not bind himself, his successor presidents, the congress, the judiciary, or the american people.
EO’s are limited to the executive branch save the current president.
I do not have a problem with the Obama EO – and Trump complied with it.
But I have major problems with you making obviously stupid and unconstitutional claims.
EO’s do not even exist in the constitution.
Obviously president issue orders.
They do so orally,
They do so in writing.
They can do so formally.
As in all else we prefer formal written orders that spell out all the details. But there is no requirement for them – constitutional or otherwise.
The authority of presidential orders – in the event there is an issue is adjudicated the same way we would adjudicate in other contexts,
More recent takes precidence over earlier,
Written is always considered more precise than oral.
More specific carries more weight than general.
If you and I have a written contract, but a few days later we orally agree to waive a section of the contract – that oral agreement is binding. The weight of the oral agreement is diminished if the parties disagree over what was said.
But contra your claims – we do not have that. The people you cite are not relevant to Trump’s standing order.
You fixate on procedure – but you do not know it.
If you do not know or care about the details – then do not argue them.
Merrwreck Garland was actually correct to not “stand by silently when their [the DOJ’s and FBI’s] integrity is unfairly attacked.” It is certainly unfair to unfairly attack the DOJ’s and the FBI’s integrity when no integrity actually exists in those government agencies. One should only attack integrity where it exists, or at least where some integrity might have existed at some time or another. Merrwreck, thanks for your deep thoughts. Now you may return to your integrity-free office and stand by silently, as usual.
Professor, as you quoted Rasmusson: There is another poll out that 42% have an unfavorable impression of AG. Do you really think that we get significant different numbers after affidavit (always a document at governments perspective) is unsealed in part?
In two weeks we celebrate “Labor Day” a week President Biden’s “Unity Summit” at the WH takes place and from there we have less than two months until midterms. In my book VOTERS are the breaker who (un)favorable the government is.
* Does Minority LeaderMitch change his spot from that as a political analyst (“outcome of elections depends on the quality of candidates”) sitting at the sidelines to the field-captain?
* How will voters react on everiday issues? Do they care about boarder security, crime wave of high coast of living?
* How about voter turn out?
I just read an analysis from DDHQ: According their model Liz Chenney syphoned just shy of 40K Biden 2020 votes, while Harriett Hagman won 93-7 on Trump voters. .
Umm in case you missed it votes are not really counted anymore…..that critcal function of government has been outsourced….And it’s an expensive endeavor. So while it may only cost your local govt say a million of two to “do local e lections.. ‘.according to their contractor….not getting to do local elections costs them billions.’ In lost revenue. So local laws be damned….And demon a racy too. how come you are not onboard….? The damages are billions if a localisation doesn’t use dominion….even if the cost of their elections is under hundreds of thousands…frivolous billions… Come on man.
And no one seems to question this fundamental scheme. That local elections cost xyz… But if locals squeak they at hit by a billion dollar damages suit? Over a maybe million dollar eke tion. That’s called a red flag..a Canary i n the coal mine….If the people doing local elections that cost need millions some how have standing to demand billions…..it’s obvious we went off the rails. But media sallks… Scared of suits. Such cowards they are…then again coward in chief from Wisconsin Paul Ryan now runs Fox news. Know your enemy.
Any judge who even entertain s damages beyond the cost of the local election….is likely an enemy….bought and paid for. Who before the case proceeds needs needs revered to their local judge of bad commissiion. Because guy know via judicial cognizants…..local elections don’t cause billions in damages. They are being not honest.And people can hold them account consulting on spurios…..fantastical damages….that seem to chill free speech for no justifiable reason!
This is a CRIMINAL matter. Damages don’t enter into it.
Garland handled the raid great. Only the MAGA nuts did not like it, and they will support the Orange Ass not matter what crime he commits. The rest of us are happy.
..so nice for Sammy to share how ‘happy’ he is in these crazy times… as they say.. ‘IGNORANCE IS BLISS…’
Orange Julius Caesar was treated gently. Several letters from the Archives. Several visits by the FBI. As documents were still missing, a grand jury was empaneled. They issued a subpoena. Trump’s lawyers lied. Someone ratted Trump out. A raid is the proper response.
As usual, Turkey is still auditioning for a gig on Fox.
1. Negotiation presumes that your adversary is acting in good faith. For reasons that can’t be disclosed — Trump has a mole — he was shown not to be.
2. Warrants are normally written broadly. Trump is the subject of at least two ongoing criminal investigations.
3. The “raid”? They brought a lot of agents, but Mar-a-Lardo is a big place. They called the Secret Service beforehand, and no one was wearing body armor.
4. The review? There is no good reason for there to be a special master. No one else gets that kind of deference.
5. “Most affidavits have sections that can be released without damaging an investigation or compromising witnesses, including information already known to the target.” But as this investigation involves national security, this one is not a “most.” Trump hasn’t asked for it to be released, and the judge has said that he doesn’t think that enough of it can be redacted for it to be anything but gibberish.
But how do I prove something to a man who believes that Tom Hanks is part of a cabal of baby-eating pedophiles, Covid is part of Bill Gates’ plan to depopulate the planet, that Donald Trump’s decades-long “wingman” relationship with pedophile Jeff Epstein was totally above-board, and doctors, scientists, scholars, historians, economists, and journalists have devoted their entire existence to deceiving you, while a reality TV star with a documented record of decades of open fraud and corruption is your only reliable source of truth?
Alice’s Red Queen couldn’t believe half of what you guys do.
“Several visits by the FBI.”
On a pretext created by the White House.
So much for an independent DOJ, and the rule of law.
But, hey, when your desire is to “get Trump” — just trash everything.
A pretext? Trump’s hemorrhoids must REALLY taste good!
The National Archives people knew that certain documents — among them, Obama’s traditional letter to him, and Kim’s “love letters” — were missing. Ergo, Trump took documents home with him.
The Archivist asked nicely, and Trump refused. She made a criminal referral, as the documents were presumably stolen (under the PRA, this is true), and the FBI got involved.
Pretext, my arse!
Lawdog, this is Trump’s side of the story summarized (per Just The News published by John Solomon written by Ben Wedon) along with Trump’s filing for a special master.
Have your wife read it. Make sure she has a large glass of red wine, as she will be entertained.
First, it is about two weeks late. The FBI has already read everything that matters. Second, it should have been submitted to the magistrate. Finally, the FBI usually has “taint teams” that go through the stash, and in. all but a few instances, that is adequate for purposes of due process,
If I were the judge, I would dress Trusty down, and never again trust him in my Court. But I would also hand the damn thing back to him, and ask him to explain why in the [bleep] it was even in my courtroom.
“Have your wife read it.”
No need to, Lawdog. What was said was clear though perhaps you have difficulty reading it.
“First, it is about two weeks late.”
Two weeks late for what? Either your reading skills are not up to par or your writing skills need improvement.
For the rest, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were responding to someone else. Though based on your logic elsewhere, your above response might be par for the course.
“Have your wife read it. Make sure she has a large glass of red wine, as she will be entertained.”
Read what ? Can I buy a noun ?
We are having a debate over whether to Trust John Solomon – who provides primary source DOCUMENTS,
or vague nonspecific claims of yours or site offering oppinions that are not supported by facts.
And you follow this was remarks so vague as to be meaningless.
“First, it is about two weeks late. The FBI has already read everything that matters.”
I am presuming you are talking about the documents seized.
You seem incapable of writing clearly.
Assuming that is what you are saying.
I doubt it. In the world of criminal law there are two fundimental principles.
Do not underestimate the stupidity of actual criminals.
Do not underestimate the laziness of law enforcement.
“Second, it should have been submitted to the magistrate.”
Again I must guess that you are refering to Trump’s lawsuit.
If so the answer depends on what is the actual goal.
You assume that Trump actually has something to hide,
that he MUST win some motion to protect what has been seized.
I would suggest that you are WRONG about the objectives.
Trump is not likely primarily after his documents back.
He will likely get that ultimately anyway.
Trump is looking to push the FBI/DOJ/Biden further back on its rear foot.
Trump is the moving party – and the FBI/DOJ must defend.
I suspect that Trump may eventually lose, but losing is not always losing.
Especially if the goal is to put the FBI/DOJ on the defensive and to
make them look even worse than they do.
“Finally, the FBI usually has “taint teams” that go through the stash, and in. all but a few instances, that is adequate for purposes of due process,”
Except that obviously is false.
Honestly – I do not care, and I do not think Trump cares either.
Just filing the lawsuit serves the purpose.
“If I were the judge, I would dress Trusty down, and never again trust him in my Court. But I would also hand the damn thing back to him, and ask him to explain why in the [bleep] it was even in my courtroom.”
Presumably by “Trusty” you mean Trump – once again you are incapable of speaking clearly.
And you assume the world shares your inside jokes.
Regardless, look at what is going on with Reinhart. Though he is ultimately somewhat protecting the DOJ/FBI,
he is definitely protecting his own Ass. He is striving vigorously to appear non-partisan to split all babies.
While he has not done what he should have – and tossed this warrant in the first place,
He has definitely not given Trump everything he wanted.
Trump is still the winner.
What was not redacted is not damning and leaves us wondering if there really is more.
DOJ/FBI are in a position of having to put up or shutup.
I do not think they EVER intended to prosecute. but now they look bad if they don’t.
But worse if they do and get shot down quickly that is even worse.
if this threatens to go to court – Trump has myriads of legal options to kill it.
Regardless all other courts are going to be atleast as Careful as Reinhart.
They may not give trump what he asks for.
But they will give him what he wants – which is keeping this in the news and keeping the perception that the FBI/DOJ/WH are corrupt in front of people.
This was a gargantuan political mistake on the Biden WH part.
It is already self evidence that DOJ/FBI screwed up.
Several high profile lawyer have already noted- Garland is lying – he did not sign off on this warrant – it is far too broad.
Garland was lined up for SCOTUS he would not have signed off on something this overly broad – even it there was evidence.
Garland is protecting DOJ/FBI that has gone rogue.
He has been put in a bind and there are no easy ways out.
The fact he is heming and hawing on the affadavit is evidence enough. ‘
‘Inidictments usually quickly follow search warrants.
The claim that DOJ/FBI need to hide the ball from Trump – is proof they do not have a case.
If they did – Trump would have the affadavit, he would be indicted and they would be headed to court.
Contra claims by the left – the only reason to hide the affadavit is you do not have a case.
If they had a case proceeding would REQUIRE sharing all the evidence with Trump.
Contra the claims of DOJ/FBI – secrecy is the right of the defendant, not the government.
We do not have secret trials in the US.
“Contra the claims of DOJ/FBI – secrecy is the right of the defendant, not the government.”
National security is an obvious exception.
“If they had a case proceeding would REQUIRE sharing all the evidence with Trump.”
After he is indicted — NOT before. What they have is an ongoing investigation, wherein they are presenting evidence to a grand jury for purposes of securing an indictment. The target may be Christina Bobb.
“Several high profile lawyer have already noted- Garland is lying – he did not sign off on this warrant – it is far too broad.” And for every one who said so, several hundred lawyers will giggle at that claim.
“The claim that DOJ/FBI need to hide the ball from Trump – is proof they do not have a case.”
Every criminal defendant would like to see their warrant. But that’s not how it works.
It is part of a process. What the documents are will point toward a motive, and raise questions that witnesses can speak authoritatively about. But like every Mob boss, Trump has a history of intimidating and threatening witnesses. Not letting him know who the rat is makes his defense harder.
“Contra the claims of DOJ/FBI – secrecy is the right of the defendant, not the government.”
National security is an obvious exception.”
Nope., Government is not ever free to violate the rights of the defendant.
It is trivially possible for government to preserve national security and protect the rights of the defendant.
One easy means is to drop the charges.
I would further note that National Security has been abused constantly to justify hiding malfeasance by government.
Long before DOJ/FBI/Mueller were lying to Congress about the Collusion Delusion using every claim in the book to prevent congress from doing oversight and learning that the entire Colluson Delusion rested on multiple HOAX’s and the FBI/DOJ knew that from the start, the FBI/DOJ have used national security and other claims to hide malfeasance. Sometime partisan, sometimes just hiding their own incompetence. Far enough in the past hiding partisan malfeasance targeting the left.
It would be stupid andunwise to presume that the “deep state” is your freind – just because at the moment you share a common enemy – Trump
Regardless, National Security does not apply here.
We knew every single detail of the misconduct that Clinton engaged in EXCEPT the actual contents of the classified documents.
We even knew the subject matter of the classified documents.
Clinton inargualy committed an actual crime, there were more classified documents, higher levels of classification,
No doubt that Clinton had removed or ordered them removed from the SCIF at the State Department.
No doubt that she had destroyed evidence, and no doubt that she had made highly classified information accessible on the internet. National Security was not an excuse that justified burying the allegations against Clinton, or the evidence against Clinton.
There is no reason the same can not be done here.
The DOJ/FBI have a massive credibility problem – the majority of americans think this is political.
It would be a huge problem is 10% of americans thought it was political.
But a majority ?
Restoring the credibility of DOJ/FBI (or punishing those who have damaged it) is far more important than some idiotic effort to “get Trump” for posession of documents that may or may not be classified, may or may not be legitimately in his possession and were not out on the internet waiting for hostile foreign powers to get them.
At this point it is necescary to know the subject matter of all the allegedly classified documents.
Because if this is about the Collusion Delusion documents that Trump ordered Declassified – by Executive order and on two prior occasions by public notice that WaPo and NYT printed and that Kash Patel trheatened to publish on the Web if DOJ/FBI did not release the redacted copies as Trump ordered – before we all grow old.
If this is about those documents – Wray must be impeachedand removed,
Garland must be impeached and removed and Biden must be impeached and removed.
Because this would be a monsterous abuse of power for the purpose of preventing the public from learning of the previous monsterous abuse of power than DOJ/FBI engaged in the “get Trump”.
Regardless, it is not possible for the public to Know this is not about those documents, without a trustworthy third party providing the public with the subject matter of the alleged declassified documents.
Next – the contents of the affadavit are not “classified” – they are NOT a national security issue.
How do we know ? Because this was handled by a magistrate judge not the FISA court.
Reinhart does not have a security clearance, and he has an unredacted copy of the affadavit.
Finally, there is nothing in this affadavit that is not going to be made know to Trump’s lawyers the moment that DOJ/FBI attempt to advance beyond this warrant. Trump can not be indicted – without providing this to him and his lawyers.
Unless, you think having violated the 4th and 5th amendments, that now you want to violate the 6th ?
This is the US – we do not have star chamber trials. Defendants are entitled to confront their accusers, and to know the evidence against them.
Further, should any case go to prosecution – US Trials are conducted in public. Witnesses testify in public.
This all comes out eventually. It needs to come out NOW.
“Every criminal defendant would like to see their warrant. But that’s not how it works.”
Actually it is.
And most emphatically so. It is very comon for the government to try to hide as much of its case until the last minute,
and courts have been far to willing to allow that – even though the right to secrecy belongs to the defendant.
Government NEVER has rights only powers.
But ultimately – long before trial – the govenrment must not only provide all warrants, and all affadavits, and all evidence to the defendant – but it must defend challenges to them – before trial.
“It is part of a process.”
One that clearly you do not know.
“What the documents are will point toward a motive”
There is no such thing as a crime that only has motive as an element.
The DOJ/FBI and the courts are not going to entertain any discussion of any defendants motives without evidence meeting a probable cause standard that a crime has been committed and that the target committed that crime.
Motive is not an element of a crime. Alleging a Motive is something prosecutors do to persuade juries.
Because jurors do not like cases where no motive is provided.
That said – I would ask YOU to provide and actual motive here ?
What reason would Trump have for wishing to criminally violate the espionage act ?
One of the problems that you/DOJ/FBI have is that any halfway intelligent person can easily gather that Trump has no motive.
Like the collusion delusion – there is no upside for Trump to actually commit the crimes being alleged.
Trump does not need the paltry amount of money that spy’s manage.
There is really only one possible motive For Trump that make sense to anyone capable of critical thinking – aparently most workin class people, and almost no one with a college degree.
That is that the information in these documents is politically damaging to democrats and politically advantageous to Trump.
Which lends credence to Trump’s claims that he declassified it.
“and raise questions that witnesses can speak authoritatively about.”
It is not possible to know whether a witness can speak authoritatively about anything without knowing who the witness is.
But it is possible based on what little evidence we have to conclude there is no witness than can authoritatively provide anything actually damning.
“But like every Mob boss, Trump has a history of intimidating and threatening witnesses.”
More claims without evidence.
You left wing nuts do this all the time. Do you have an actual prosecution ? Even a credible claim ?
“Not letting him know who the rat is makes his defense harder.”
Correct, and that is unconstitutional.
The job of the prosecutor, and the courts is not to get convictions. It is to do justice.
Our system is supposed to give every possible advantage to the defense.
I always find it interesting reading about Trials in the colonial period.
American Colonists had more rights to justice in King George’s courts in the colonies, than ordinary people today.
The US right bears a significant responsibility for the loss of civil rights of criminal defendants in the US.
But not the sole responsibility – the left has been complicit – even more so today.
It is completely weird that the left today is making it easier for dangerous criminals to get bail,
making it easier to release them from prison. but continues to participate in making it easier to convict.
But the left is nothing if not inconsistant and hypocritical.
Sammy, you’ve proved Shakespeare correct yet again, when he wrote (sort of) that: “Some are born stupid. Some achieve stupidity. And some have stupidity thrust upon them.” However, Sammy, you have also proven in your case that these three possibilities are not mutally exclusive.
“The Lone Ranger and Tonto get surrounded by hundreds of armed Indians.”
“The Lone Ranger says, ‘It looks like we’ve had it this time, Tonto.’
“Tonto replies, ‘Who is `we`, white man?’”
Sammy said, “The rest of us are happy.”
Whose “the rest of us,” —– man?
All the vagrant nomads, dependents, parasites, illegal aliens and foreign invaders?
Poor Bigot George, confounded again by standard English.
Your headline for you commentary reveals how naive you are. There is no trust to be earned. Those who support Trump would not trust Garland even if he had done everything exactly as you suggest he should have. They have a slavish, cultish devotion to Trump and will not abandon him no matter what Garland or the DOJ do or do not do.
peltonrandy says: August 22, 2022 at 7:28 PM
Your headline for you commentary reveals how naive you are. There is no trust to be earned. Those who support Trump would not trust Garland even if he had done everything exactly as you suggest he should have. They have a slavish, cultish devotion to Trump and will not abandon him no matter what Garland or the DOJ do or do not do.
How do you like to eat your crow?
You should consider contacting Joseph Biden and invite him to deliver a speech to your
Act Blue CovenSix Sigma team. No one else wants the Big Guy anywhere near them because….you know… credibility, trust, believability and those other trifling things that are concerning for Americans: zero percentrunaway inflation. Let us know how that goes. However, given how many bridges your ilk have burned, you likely will have a hard time finding anyone WGAF. Ditto for CPR if you need cardiac massage. Just saying.
Never burn bridges. Never.
Who Wants to Host a Biden Speech? The idea that the president should avoid public remarks is catching on
But now as candidates campaign for November’s elections, a striking number of members of the president’s own party don’t seem to trust him with public messages of any kind…..Matt Viser reports on Mr. Biden for the Washington Post:
They don’t want the President showing up to speak for them at all? Mr. Viser shares some of the responses to his queries on potential presidential visits:
So he’s saying there’s a chance! More specifically Mr. Kelly seems willing to extend to Mr. Biden the same privileges he’s willing to extend to any other human being seeking to visit Arizona.
There is more but I hate to fillet you in public
Trust is very hard to earn.
DOJ/FBI have lost it.
For many of us – long before Trump came along.
The anthrax envelopes.
The Whitmer Kidnapping hoax
Whitey Bulgar is back in the news – not at all good for the FBI.
Over 130 US Marshalls raided on Good Friday 2020 the Cuban home of the family hosting Elian Gonzalez in Little Havana Miami by order of Attorney General Janet Reno. Despicable
Good Friday 2000
The examples are endless. I forgot Reno’s meddling int he Gonzales case.
John, you and anyone else interested in what went on behind the scenes with Whitey Bulgar might be interested. Let me know what you think.
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-08/2022-8-18 JF to FBI (Bulger).pdf
Link did not work. I probably am interested. But it would not change much for me.
My poor impression of the FBI goes all the way back to Hoover.
Many on the Right are pretending that we are dealing with a few bad apples.
I have no doubt that all of our government agencies behave even worse when left partisans gain power than when they are more conservative – which has been historically true.
But power corrupts. It corrupts when it is held by those on the right.
It corrupts when held by those on the left.
I find Madison’s federalist 51 fascinating – thought oddly unself-aware.
Madison is correct that more is required than the people – democracy to regulate governance.
But he misses the fact that all his additional measures ultimately still rely on the people.
The history of the US has been a history of eroding all the checks and constraints in madisonian government.
These are sold as a move towards more democracy, But they are ultimately a move to more authoritarian government.
We are focused on the FBI at the moment – but these problems are everywhere.
Truman essentially created the CIA and was certain it was a mistake by the time he left office.
The history of the CIA has been completely disasterous.
Covid has exposed that our entire national (and state) public health apparatus has no idea what it is doing.
I have been arguing based on Data since very near the start of he Pandemic – that there is no evidence that any public policy response has worked with C19.
China appears to be destroying its economy in pursuit of Zero Covid
Regardless, in so many ways we are getting lesson after lesson that Big Government does not work, that it can not solve our problems, that whatever if anything can be done – it must be done by us as individuals.
John, it should have worked. I have a copy of it and the link. I copied the link again from the website, and it worked.
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-08/2022-8-18 JF to FBI (Bulger).pdf
I got the link from Just the News. You can try going directly from the website. Maybe my subscription opens up certain things unavailable to others. I don’t know. If it doesn’t work, I have a copy along with the PDF.
Both worked for me. My impression of the FBI did not improve with this report. It makes me more suspicious. If you cannot get the report, I can send it to an email or post it, but I don’t think the blog owner wants that done.
The FBI has been politically corrupt in one form or another for all of my lifetime.
It has not universally been corrupt favoring democrats.
Even today it is not inherently “woke corrupt” – but it is absolutely corrupt – as much of government is, in preserving its own perqs. Trump was a threat to government power in “the deep state” – and will be far more of a threat should he be president in 2025.
It appears that the WH participated even instigated this. But it is near certain that the FBI would have done something on its own.
What should be disturbing – as we see with the Witmer Kidnapping, plot, the collusion delusion, and this – is how incompetent they are.
They can not even set someone up properly.
Of course that is far far harder than it looks – especially if the person being setup actually has decent lawyers, and 9intellectual skills of their own.
Successfully setting someone up depends on their being stupid, and everyone else never looking carefully.
It is not possible to get right.
Were you able to get the Bulgar transcript?
Now, you understand how I feel about John Solomon.
“Now, you understand how I feel about John Solomon.”
No I do not.
It is self evident you do not trust Solomon because his reporting disempowers your politics.
And that you will grasp any fig leaf to prove him wrong.
That dispite the fact that now almost 4 years later – everything he has reported is confirmed multple times over.
At best you appear to be arguing that this one time – in Ukraine, Joe Biden was not corrupt – because a plethora of politically or actually corrupt groups claim that. An argument that self evidently fails.
I trust Solomon – because he has earned my trust. Because his reporting is based on unimpeachable primary sources, not the self serving idiocy you cite. Because he has been correct on every major story he has reported.
I do not trust you – because you are wrong constantly, you do not know the law or the constitutions.
You cite sources that do not say what you claim they do.
You clearly have not read the Obama EO you keep refering to.
You talk about reason – but you prove that any ability to reason is beyond your ability.
I do not trust the FBI because for decades they have not been trustworthy.
I did not trust the FBI under Clinton, or Bush or Obama or Trump or Biden.
I do not beleive that the FBI misconduct is inherently political – though they are drifting left.
The funduimental problem is that it is self serving.
I have no doubt the FBI would have stabbed Obama in the back had he tried to keep some of his campaign promises that would have threatened entrenched deep state power. Just as they are doing to Trump now.
I have no doubt they protected Clinton – because she would have empowered them.
Regardless, I trust many reporters on the left – because they have earned my trust.
Most of those are now on the outs – because these are the people who did not trust the FBI, CIA, etc under Bush,
and they did not change that view with Obama, or Trump or Biden.
What has changed is that 3 presidents empowered the deep state – and as a result can count on FBI, DOJ, CIA, … to protect them. One, Trump has not, and we can expect them to do anything necescary to get Trump.
“I regard what the Biden administration is currently doing as the Second War on Terror. This one is focused domestically on American citizens instead of foreign organizations. But the tactics being used are very similar to the ones being used in the first War on Terror.
I reported on a dozen cases or so that were very similar where the FBI would boast in this flamboyant way necessity had broken up a dangerous plot being formulated by American Muslims.
And every time you look, every time, it turned out that the people who designed the plot, who came up with the idea of where to attack and funded the operation were FBI informants of FBI agents. They were embedded all the time in the plots.
Not just in a way that they learned about them and infiltrated them, but they actually manufactured and orchestrated them.
If it is really such a great threat, this threat of domestic Muslim terrorism, why does the FBI have to create its own plots? Why aren’t they finding ones that they themselves aren’t orchestrating? That’s the same question I have here.
If it’s true they are saying anti-government right-wing groups or domestic extremist groups are THE greatest threat to national security, which is what Biden and the intelligence community are saying, greater than ISIS or al Qaeda or China or Russia. Why do they need to manufacture a plot and put in people’s heads, let’s go kidnap Governor Whitmer? There should be tons of plots that they are detecting?
That leads to the question people on your network and others have asked to the horror of the liberal sector of the corporate media, which is: What did the FBI know about the planning of the January 6 attack? How embedded were they in these groups?
When these kinds of attacks happen, the FBI and the security state seize on them to say do you see, there are grave dangers, we need more money, more power, more surveillance authorities in order to keep you safe. If they are the ones driving it, at least for the questions of what those motives are.”
..we pity those who get caught up in the MSNBC/CNN gobbldegook about Trump to the point where they start blindly repeating their lies, here that millions of Americans ‘have a slavish, cultish devotion’ to the man they simply believe by their good judgement would make a better President than all the others running.. it’s an interesting phenomenon to see how duped people are by the lying talking heads…
Trump’s lawyers have finally responded in court: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.1.0.pdf
Unsurprisingly, they make claims that are false (e.g., “the Government has refused to provide President Trump with any reason for the unprecedented, general search of his home,” when the warrant identifies 3 potential crimes; they refer to Trump as “a President who had been fully cooperative,” when he failed to turn over previously-subpoenaed materials).
They say “On June 8,2022, Mr. Bratt wrote to counsel for President Trump. His letter requested, in pertinent part, that the storage room be secured.” We still don’t know what Bratt himself said, but if that description is accurate, it was not a request that a padlock be added, but that the room be **secured**, and law specifies how presidential records are to be secured, especially at a “club” where foreign nationals sometimes walk around: https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/isoo-implementing-directive.html
They add a “message from president Trump to Attorney General Merrick Garland. … ‘President Trump wants the Attorney General to know that he has been hearing from all over the country about the raid. If there was one word to describe their mood, it is “angry.” The heat is building up. The pressure is building up. Whatever I can do to take the heat down, to bring the pressure down, just let us know.”
Apparently Trump can’t figure out for himself what to say “to take the heat down,” since he hasn’t attempted to do so. His statement comes across as a version of “You’ve got nice ___ here. It would be a shame if something happened to it.” I’m sure the judge will approve.
Warrants must specify crimes. But the warrant is pretty much useless in telling you what is going on.
The actual information justifying the raid is in the affadavit and despite constitutional requirements DOJ is unlikely to share any of that until the last minute.
We shall see what the Judge decides to unseal. But after that the next likely clue is whether DOJ indicts and several prominent lawyers say – unlikely. this is going badly, is not likely to get better with time, and absent evidence that Trump tried to sell nuclear bomb plans to the saudi’s it is not going anywhere.
Whether those of you on the left like it or not.
Presidents can declassify anything, They can do so defacto, and ex-presidents can have classified documents at their homes.
So Says the Clinton, Bush, Obama EO on classified documents.
And finally Judge jackson says – a presidents papers are his – not NARA’s if he so chooses.
DOJ/FBI look bad and likely will look much worse before this is done.
If you bother to read Judge Jackson’s actual ruling — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2662818/judicial-watch-inc-v-national-archives-and-records-administration/ — you’ll see that she didn’t say what you claim. Her ruling doesn’t even apply here. Also, SCOTUS’s ruling on the PRA is the ruling precedent.
Jacksons ruling has never been appealed. It is law.
The PRA did not take affect until Jan 20 1981
My small mistake: SCOTUS ruled on the predecessor to the PRA, the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act. Thanks for prompting me to correct my mistake (unlike you, who regularly runs away from correcting your mistakes).
Jackson ruled on a DC District case. This case is in FL. District court opinions generally are not binding on other district courts. The facts of the two cases also differ substantially, so her ruling doesn’t apply for that reason either.
The SCOTUS ruling in Nixon v Administrator of General Services is clearly relevant and does serve as precedent for SDFL.
District court opinions are not binding on any court, inc. courts in the same district.
Uh, no. It would only be persuasive, as it arose in a sister District. And it doesn’t help you, in any event.
I have read her ruling.
It says PRECISELY what I claim it said.
There is No SCOTUS ruling that overturns this.
Regardless, you can claim Jackson is wrong, or that higher courts might ultimately decide otherwise as The Clinton/JW case was not appealed.
But it is both the state of the law at this time and even more important – It is reasonable for Trump to rely on it.
Even if the courts were to ultimately decide that Trump is wrong on absolutely everything.
Each of those decisions would be a decision of first impression on issues where prior case law and executive orders held the opposite.
While I do not expect that if this went to SCOTUS that they would find as those on the left wish – there is a huge contitutional problem here. Even if an assortment of Laws were found contrary to Trump’s claims, those laws would run afoul of the constitutions vesting of executive power int he president.
But lets presume you somehow manage to get SCOTUS to rule your way.
You STILL have the problem that you can not get to any crime – because Trump can not have the intent to commit a crime when he reasonably beleived that existing case law and EO’s by 3 prior presidents allowed his actions.
And that is your BEST case scenario.
By far the more likely scenario is that SCOTUS blows this whole thing to smithereens.
The DOJ/FBI interpretation of existing law is unconstitutional, at odds with existing Executive orders, At odds with existing caselaw.
And Now we learn the WH was driving this – including unusual interpretations of the law from the start.
Again: ABJ’s ruling is not binding on a court in SDFL, and SCOTUS’s ruling in Nixon v Administrator of General Services is clearly relevant and does serve as precedent for SDFL.
“Again: ABJ’s ruling is not binding on a court in SDFL,”
Correct, but it is guidance, and even more importantly it is the CURRENT guidance.
“SCOTUS’s ruling in Nixon v Administrator of General Services is clearly relevant and does serve as precedent for SDFL.”
Correct – nut not in the way that you are trying to make.
The Nixon Vs. GSA ruling does NOT contradict ABJ. All it says is that the WH can reject claims of executive priviledge regarding the documents of past presidents.
The SCOTUS ruling is about executive privildge, the ABJ ruling is about ownership.
The SCOTUS ruling predates the PRA and may well be moot,
But even if it is not, the SCOTUS ruling essentially allows the current president to waive priviledge of the past president with respect to documents that are necescary to the current administration.
This would – if it is still good law, allow the WH to Grant the FBI access to Documents in possession of Trump – if there was a credible allegation of a crime. But you have a cart horse problem. The WH waived priviledge BEFORE the FBI became involved.
And the WH involved DOJ/FBI.
That actually causes you MORE problems, not less. This is the smoking Gun that proves the WH was involved int his from the start.
You have just established key elements of Trump’s claim that this is a political witch hunt.
AND you have Biden in a WORSE situation than what you impeached Trump for.
The Biden WH appears to have attempted to ENTRAP Trump.
That stinks to high heaven.
Regardless, the ABJ case is “good law” – meaning it has not been overruled. It is not absolutely binding on SDFL, It IS however the point at which SDFL must start. More importantly it IS binding on DOJ/FBI – they are free to challenge it, but NOT just pretend it is not there in a different venue.
The Nixon case is not about ownership it is about the power of the current president to waive priviledge of past presidents.
It is also not without limits – though they appear to be broad, and finally it is not with certainty good law, given that it predates the PRA.
As noted – Nixon vs. GSA is about privilege not ownership or possession.
I honestly care very little about Executive privilege. Except that DOJ and the WH and the courts have not properly addressed Trump or Trump officials claims of executive privilege. It is near certain Bannon’s conviction will be overturned on appeal because his claims of privilege were not given proper due process. i.e they were waived away by slight of hand by the house, and the courts without proper hearing.
Whether YOU like it or not – the house or DOJ do NOT get to determine the validity of challenges to subpeona’s unilaterally.
Criminal culpability for failure to respond to a subpeona after Bannon (and others) claimed priviledge or in any other way rejected the House authority – required the HOUSE to go to court to ask the court to enforce the subpeona.
That is ALWAYS how it has been done in the past – that is due process.
Courts enforce subpeona’s Courts decide the legitimacy of subpeana’s, courts decide matters of priviledge – not DOJ, not the House.
All that said – I do not care what the breadth or narrowness of executive privildge is – personally ALL govenrment privildges should be as narrow as possibe – though that is not the case according to courts.
I do not care whether current presidents can waive priviledge for past presidents.
No matter how issues of priviledge are decided – so long as they same constraints apply to Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden – I am OK with that.
If Biden wishes to waive Trump’s executive priviledge and the courts decide that is OK.
So Be it.
2025 will come and “turn about is fair play”.
Those on the left are always short sighted – as they were when they eliminated the fillibuster for judicial appointments.
What goes arround comes arround.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
It is amazing that you can fixate on a WH assertion of a Watergate era decision about executive priviledge while MISSING entirely that this PROVES the WH was DIRECTING this from the start.
Nixon vs. GSA – no matter how it applies is unimportant – it does not make anything a crime, and it does not justify a search warrant.
But the WH raising Nixon vs. WH to involve DOJ/FBI in a civil NARA conflict – that is damning to the WH.
It also proves that the WH has been LYING from the start.
When they refused to comment because this was a DOJ/FBI matter they had nothing to do with.
When the WH brought DOJ/FBI into it.
No, it doesn’t. The tapes were the property of the historian. They were not presidential records.
Please read the actual opinion – as well as those it was based on.
You are completely clueless, and just making up the law as you go.
I would further note that the WH intervention at the start of this has implications far beyond this case.
It is going to pose a problem for EVERY other effort by the Biden admin to use DOJ/FBI against Trump officials.
The exposure of the WH’s involvement and the clear motives behind it could easily result in the courts deciding that the WH can not waive executive privilege for a prior administration.
But it gets worse. Lets just say that somehow the WH wins on this issue – which but for this current memo that is very problematic in that it leaves little room for any conclusion beyond that the WH waived privildge for the purpose of creating a crime from thin air.
Lets assume Biden wins somehow.
All that means is that the 2025 Republican presidents DOJ is going to go through former Biden administration officials like a hot scythe through warm butter.
Those of you on the left never think past the most shallow level of anything you try to do, or anything you claim.
Overall I would like to see the Biden Admin mostly win.
I would like to see the courts rule in favor of the greatest transparency.
Weakening executive privilege,
Weakening control of presidential records.
I would like to see all presidents fear that their successors would look to prosecute them for dubious actions.
I would like to see the Biden administration prosecuted in 2025 for all the unconscienable and illegal acts that they have been performing for the past 2 years.
So please – start a fight against Trump that he can not lose – even if you win.
Because “turn about is fair play”
Yeah, I bothered.
From the case: “Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.”
The tapes were recorded by historian Taylor Branch and therefore, Branch is the owner of the tapes. How does that become a Presidential record?
“Plaintiff insists that it is not challenging President Clinton’s classification of the audiotapes as personal, but rather defendant’s “erroneous decision the audiotapes are not presidential records.”
I don’t see how a tape recording made by a third party that constitutes reminiscences constitutes a presidential record, or that it wouldn’t be a personal record akin to a diary. By contrast, the PDB cannot be construed as a personal record.
Just a reminder of the supreme hypocrisy of trump supporters…………..BUT HER E-MAILS……..LOCK HER UP……..LOCK HER UP………..LOCK HER UP
You know that Hillary was supposed to usher in Agenda 21, but since Trump won it is now Agenda 2030?
We are watching Canada and Australia fall to tyranny, completely captured by the globalist cabal. And if you want to know the future they have in store for the United States, just look at Canada under Trudeau. This is why Trump’s reelection had to be stopped and Biden had to be installed in 2020. We Americans are sitting back, distracted, watching our very freedom slide towards tyranny at alarming speed. The Constitution and Trump stand in their way, so Trump must be stopped by any means necessary. Wake up America!
Goodness, even Fox News is hosting an opinion piece titled “The Trump Mar-a-Lago search was justified” — https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-mar-a-lago-search-justified
I agree with the Bradley Moss Fox article. Thanks for sharing and Darren please share with JT (thanks) so he can consider or respond to it in his next post on this topic.
This shows one thing Fox News has over the MSM. It is more balanced and permits diversity of opinion.
By the way, guess who wrote it? A DC lawyer.
“. . . an opinion piece . . .”
Written by the same swine who cheered the Russia Hoax and the unconscionable persecution of General Flynn.
“Mr. Mueller has a new angle of criminal inquiry to pursue. Yet again, this inquiry can in theory reach all the way to the president himself.”
He was correct in all three instances.
Ph’ this Mass Mu8dering Genocidal Maniac & Good Ridden’s with a court date in front of the Gen Pop left alive!
BREAKING: Ghoulish Dr. Fauci Announces Resignation – Will Step Down in December
By Cristina Laila
Published August 22, 2022 at 10:25am
He’s 81 and turns 82 this year. He’s retiring. Well-deserved.
Dying in prison is what “I AM SCIENCE” deserves.
That’s what the “stable genius” deserves.
You are dangerously uninformed. Read about what Fauci has been doing at NIH for half a century. The man belongs in prison.
Fauxi is proof of the failure of public expertise.
Fauci retired from science 40 years ago. Since then, he’s been a pull-peddling bureaucrat, a megalomaniac, a serial liar, a power luster, and a destroyer.
If there were any justice in this culture, he’d spend his retirement in infamy.
Apparently that’s where you’re spending yours.
I will never willingly ever take another one of their so called “Vaccines” & will vigorously step between anyone that attempts top talk another person, child into taking one.
There’s much more info coming out now, but everyone should be as I believe, “In Fear for their Lives” from that bio/Chem crap that is even being food in their/our Food, Air, Water, Drugs.
Check it out, Last week, in Texas, Florida, Ohio, Rank n File Military/different Branches had huge wins in courts against being Forced by Biden, Austin, Assorted Commies to take their Rat Poison De*th Jabs. More Victories coming.
“Surely that’s what the government would have done if any other former president were involved.”
We all should agree that the government has an important interest in how classified materials as well as other presidential records are to be kept, but there are means to do so that are far less intrusive and damaging to a former president’s privacy and reputation than the show of excessive force that accompanies an unnecessary search warrant.
An opinion in the Wall Street Journal today explains why and how. It would be good for Professor Turley to comment on what David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey have said.
For crying out loud, Real President Donald J. Trump was the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of U.S. military forces. The president may declassify on the spot. At worst, the “heinous crime” was an innocent oversight on the part of the man who endeavored mightily to Make America Great Again, not fundamentally transform it into a tin horn banana republic of dictatorship and cesspool, or sell political influence for personal/familial gain and launder huuuuge amounts of money and treasure, all while evading taxes.
Even if he declassified it, it would be illegal for him to attempt to destroy presidential records, especially if done in order to obstruct an investigation. Also, national defense materials have to be stored in with an appropriate level of security even if not classified.
Placed within a padlocked room as requested by the National Archives and the room itself part of a facility guarded and protected by the Secret Service is quite arguably an appropriate level of security, except perhaps for one particularly targeted former president.
I’ve never seen a copy of the Archives actual request, and I doubt that you have either, but if you have, just link to it, and then we can focus on their actual request and not your substitution.
The required security is determined by law (https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/isoo-implementing-directive.html — see Sec. 2001.43 on Storage), your personal belief that a “room itself part of a facility guarded and protected by the Secret Service is quite arguably an appropriate level of security” notwithstanding.
The “required security” you cite does not entail presidential records, and it is why there is a separate Presidential Records Act. One does not have to read far into 32 CFR Parts 2001 and 2003 Classified National Security Information; Final Rule to learn that it is but a directive for guiding governmental agencies.
“This Directive sets forth guidance to [agencies] on
original and derivative classification, downgrading, declassification,
and safeguarding of classified national security information.”
Again, were it not for this one particular former president no one would be pedaling your canard.
“The “required security” you cite does not entail presidential records … it is but a directive for guiding governmental agencies”
The guidance was written in response to EO 13526, Classified National Security Information, which notes “These directives shall be binding on the agencies,” so it’s not simply “guidance.” Many of documents are presidential records, which should have been in the possession of NARA, an agency.
You still haven’t presented the actual text confirming your claim “Placed within a padlocked room as requested by the National Archives,” and Trump’s lawyers’ filing today indicates that it was Bratt, not NARA, who told Trump to properly secure the documents. But they didn’t quote Bratt either.
A president of the United States is not an “agency”, and that should not be difficult for a rational person to appreciate. Trump’s presidential records were properly secured. That you would have anyone believe otherwise shows your prejudice against Trump. It is to be expected that those like you will keep up your blinding hatred for the likes of Trump. “Long live the Administrative State” is the cry that beckons the foolish and the unaware.
What is the “Bratt” you reference? When it is searched all that comes up is a Swedish professional ice hockey winger for the New Jersey Devils of the National Hockey League.
Trump is not President. You’re correct that he is not an agency, but again, these documents are supposed to be in the possession of an agency, not in Trump’s possession.
You wrote that the documents were “Placed within a padlocked room as requested by the National Archives,” and my point is that we do not know what was actually requested, unless we have access to the letter in which they made the request, and according to Trump’s filing yesterday, that letter came from Jay Bratt at the DOJ, not someone at NARA.
That you ask “What is the “Bratt” you reference?” tells me that you haven’t read Trump’s motion from yesterday, nor motions by the DOJ in this case. Jay Bratt is Chief of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section in the National Security Division of the DOJ. He’s among the signatories on the government’s motions and his presence reflects the government’s concerns about national security documents Trump failed to return to the government. Per Trump’s motion, Bratt visited Trump’s property on June 3 with 3 FBI agents, and Trump received a June 8 letter from Bratt about properly securing the room; however, Trump didn’t quote the text of the letter or append it as an exhibit, so we still don’t know what Bratt actually said about securing the room.
I haven’t read the motions, but would sure like to read the affidavit. It would help to gauge the motions’ truthfulness.
Ron A. Hoffman: With a Trump indictment you will surely have a chance to peruse the affidavit. Or most of it. As is normal protocol.
it would be illegal for him to attempt to destroy presidential records, especially if done in order to obstruct an investigation.
Nice circular reasoning you got there.
You’re mistaking a narrowing arrow for a loop. Odd.
WHO ORDERED THE GATES AND DOORS OPEN?
When will the Jan. 6 Committee subpoena every member of the greater Capitol security team to ask each one; who ordered them to open the gates and doors and allow masses of unruly rioters into the Capitol area and building?
A FORCE TOO STRONG FOR ME TO OVERCOME
“…Merrick Garland Missed Four Chances to Earn the Public Trust…”
– Professor Turley
And the absent judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, has missed 162 years of opportunities to grab the jurisprudential “bull by the horns” and vigorously and appropriately fulfill its duty and sworn oath to “support” the literal “manifest tenor” of the Constitution, and arbitrarily issue spontaneous decisions, or solicit cases to accomplish that purpose.
The last Chief Justice to do precisely that was Roger B. Taney, who admonished President Lincoln, informing him that his act to suspend habeas corpus was illicit, perfidious and unconstitutional. In fact, every act of Lincoln was unconstitutional but, at least, Taney put forth some effort toward the appearance of tangible, kinetic allegiance to and compliance with fundamental law.
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
Rasmussen’s polls are not valid, which has been proven repeatedly
EXCLUDE SUCH PERSONS, AS ARE IN SO MEAN A SITUATION, THAT THEY ARE ESTEEMED TO HAVE NO WILL OF THEIR OWN
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
As usual, Professor Turley’s analysis objectively deals with the facts as currently known. And there are a lot of facts we just don’t know.
One thing that concerns me is the FBI not permitting anyone from the Trump team to remain inside to observe and document exactly what they searched and listed in their inventory. Also, why would they need to ask that security cameras be turned off? While the FBI provided a receipt of the seized documents, do I understand correctly the receipt only shows the quantity and classification markings and not specifically what the subject documents related to? So while they identify Top Secret/SCI, we don’t know the underlying subject of the document. Without anyone from Trump’s team being able to observe this process, how can we be certain the FBI isn’t manufacturing evidence (subject documents) that would fit the classification markings they listed in the receipt?
Two convictions. Jes’ sayin’…
Uh, Olly: Trump doesn’t deny continuing to possess TS/SCI documents after his lawyer signed a false affidavit saying they had all been returned. Try to keep up with the lies: the latest is that “they’re mine, not theirs”, meaning the documents, which is also a lie. Trump left behind the lie that “the FBI will plant TS/SCI documents”. That lie was right before the lie that “every document I take is automatically declassified because I issued a standing order” that no one ever heard of or saw, including John Bolton, Trump’s head of national security. And, Trump recorded the seizure of the documents on CCTV, but hasn’t released the footage. Instead, he is fundraising over it, trying to stir outrage.
I want you to defend citizen Trump’s possession of TS/SCI documents, which is illegal, even for members of Congress, who are required to go to a SCIF to even view the documents. I want to know why a Trump disciple like you isn’t outraged over his unlawful retention of these documents, his refusal to return them and then lying about still having some, which the tipster told the FBI about.
I want you to…
I couldn’t care less what you want. If that changes, I’ll permit you to know. Now, unless you have a cogent answer to the question I asked, then no amount of your frothy bile will suffice.
Without anyone from Trump’s team being able to observe this process, how can we be certain the FBI isn’t manufacturing evidence (subject documents) that would fit the classification markings they listed in the receipt?
You can’t defend the theft of documents containing our most-sensitive national security information, now can you? You can’t defend the lies, now can you? You can’t defend his claim that “they’re mine, not theirs”, now can you? You can’t defend the need to force your hero to turn the papers over after polite requests, a subpoena and negotiations failed, now can you? You also really can’t find fault with the search warrant, either, now can you, since it DID yield 20 boxes of documents that Trump’s lawyers lied about? WHY, knowing all of this, would you believe that the FBI was in the wrong? Actually, the FBI was only carrying out a court order sought by the DOJ on behalf of the NARA, that had tried everything short of a search warrant to get the documents back. WHAT, according to you, was Garland supposed to do–just let him keep the documents, hope that Trump, or a housekeeper, a guest, a landscaper or the pool boy didn’t pass them on to Russia, China, Iran or some other country that could use the information against us, when even members of Congress aren’t allowed to possess these documents? You really can’t deny that Trump is the total cause of all of this, which wouldn’t have happened if: 1. he hadn’t taken the TS/SCI documents in the first place–he had competent attorneys to advise him what he was and wasn’t allowed to take; 2. had returned them upon request; 3. hadnt forced the DOJ to get a subpoena; 4. hadn’t had his lawyer lie about all of them getting returned; 5. hadn’t publicized the search, claiming to be a “victim” and fundraising off of it. If you were a member of the military, consider this: isn’t this what you fought for–the security of the United States, which Trump jeopardized.
“Trump’s team” watched the seizure on CCTV. Do you wonder why they haven’t disclosed the recordings? Could it be because they prove that the FBI didn’t “plant” anything?
I couldn’t care less what you want. If that changes, I’ll permit you to know. Now, unless you have a cogent answer to the question I asked, then no amount of your frothy bile will suffice.
My cogent answer is explained above: Trump watched the seizure on CCTV, and he has a copy of the recording, which he hasn’t disclosed. I guarantee you that if the recordings showed anything amiss, it would be all over Fox by now. Plus, Trump doesn’t deny that he had the TS/SCI documents–he claims he owned them. Republicans in Congress are trying to say that he just wanted them for his “memoirs”. So, there’s NO dispute that he retained the TS/SCI papers.
“Without anyone from Trump’s team being able to observe this process . . .”
You know who else likes darkness and secrecy? — Vampires.
Those vampires have been sucking Trump’s blood and spirit for at least six years.
Pretty tough to manufacture boxes and boxes worth….
“Uh, Olly: Trump doesn’t deny continuing to possess TS/SCI documents”
Trump has repeatedly sstated that he had no classified documents at MAL,
That anything that was classified had been declassified by him as president.
There is plenty of public evidence – in places such as twitter, WaPo, NYT that Trump declassified massive numbers of documents.
At least 3 people have confirmed Trump’s “standing order” – one in an affadavit under oath.
Further one person has named half a dozen other people present when that occured.
“after his lawyer signed a false affidavit saying they had all been returned.”
If that is correct prosecute her or disbar and or/disbar – however Multiple attorney’s have sworn there was no classified material at MAL prior to this raid.
“Try to keep up with the lies: the latest is that “they’re mine, not theirs”, meaning the documents, which is also a lie.”
Nope, that is the state of the law – as defined by Judge Amy Jacksen – an Obama appointee in Clinton Vs. Judicial Watch in 2012.
“Trump left behind the lie that “the FBI will plant TS/SCI documents””.
No others have said that might be possible.
Given the conduct of the FBI in political cases over the past 6 years – that is not hard to beleive.
The FBI has already been caught lying and falsifying evidence several times in Trump related cases.
“That lie was right before the lie that “every document I take is automatically declassified because I issued a standing order” that no one ever heard of or saw, including John Bolton, Trump’s head of national security. ”
Except atleast 3 people have confirmed that.
“And, Trump recorded the seizure of the documents on CCTV, but hasn’t released the footage. Instead, he is fundraising over it, trying to stir outrage.”
Yup, people are outraged, and he likely will drip out the CCTV footage a bit at a time to sustain the outrage.
If you do not want publicly embarrased – conduct yourself with integrity.
“I want you to defend citizen Trump’s possession of TS/SCI documents”
Read the Clinton, Bush and Obama EO’s. Numerous ranking members of former administrations retain their security clearances – by presidential order. But Ex-presidents and ex-VP’s not only retain clearances, they have SCIF’s in their homes – to deal with Classified documents, and they By Executive order – last issued by OBAMA, have full access to all classified meaterial in the US including TS/SCI, code word, and Nuclear without having to demonstrate a need to know.
Only the current president can deny an ex-president access to classified material.
This is all by Obama’s EO. Biden can rescind or modify that – but not retro-actively.
But I highly doubt will hinge on actual classified information. It appears increasingly likely this is material related to the Collusion delusion – which is embarrasing to DOJ/FBI and which Trump Publicly ordered declassified – and order Biden did not rescind, which has not been publicly released to this day.
If that proves true – Merrit Garland and Christoher Wray will be impeached and removed in 2023.
“which is illegal”
Not for ex-presidents.
“even for members of Congress, who are required to go to a SCIF to even view the documents.”
Correct, and there is a SCIF at MAL.
“I want to know why a Trump disciple like you isn’t outraged over his unlawful retention of these documents, his refusal to return them and then lying about still having some, which the tipster told the FBI about.”
Because thus far nothing you claim is true.
The president can declassifiy anything.
If he walks out of the whitehouse with classified documents – they are defacto declassified – no standing order needed.
Even Obama appointee Judge Amy Jackson found that WH documents are the presidents (ex-presidents) personal property if they want them.
Who were the officials? Simpering lackeys like Kash Patel, who is a probable J6 co-conspirator? And where is the documentation of this order?
Non-classified documents can be marked personal, provided that they are. But I don’t think Trump wins that defense in court with respect to above-top-secret docs.
It does not matter if Alex Jones, Richard Spensor, or Adolf Hilter is threatening to publish these documents that were publicly – and by executive order declassified.
Those failing to follow the order are engaged in abuse of power – as well as the coverup of the criminal conduct of the FBI and DOJ over the past 6 years.
Do you really wish to be defending those engaged in covering up their own bad acts or those of their cronies ?
If this is about the Documents Trump publicly declassified repeatedly regarding the Collusion delusion – then you can expect that Biden and Garland and Wray will be impeached
“Those failing to follow the order are engaged in abuse of power – as well as the coverup of the criminal conduct of the FBI and DOJ over the past 6 years.”
Evidently, there isn’t a conspiracy so bat-guano cray-cray that you won’t swallow it. https://www.ispot.tv/ad/q8lj/kayak-moms-a-kayak-denier
Your citing a fictitious TV show ?
There are people right and left who beleive some absolutely bat$shit crazy things.
Most of these people have mental health issues.
Those beleiving in truly crazy things are small in number whether on the left or the right.
That said ordinary people on the left and right beleive quite different things.
Almost 80% of the country now beleives the 2020 election was rigged.
A significant portion of those on the left beleive that an economic system that has resulted in more bloodshed than any ever – hundreds of millions dead, is a good idea.
They beleive that men can wish to be women and women men and that wishing will make it so.
They beleive that those who are actually evil will not take advantage of this.
They beleive that you can add 5M people to the bottom of the US without any negative impacts on those slightly better off.
They beleive that you can pay for things by just printing money.
They beleive whatever purported experts in government tell them.
They beleive that Russia is our enemy, except when they are told it is our friend, except when they are told it is our
They have not read 1984, but they are working heard to bring it about.
Where is the documentation of the order ? It is actually several orders.
Trump Ordered the collusion delusion documents declassified in 2018, 2018, and 2021.
This was reported in NYT and Wapo.
And on Jan 19, 2021 he issued and executive order – that Biden has not rescinded.
Frankly one that rescinding would get him impeached.
“Non-classified documents can be marked personal, provided that they are.”
Nope, the sole determination of what WH documents are the personal property of the President is the president.
Again read the constitution. Classification has ZERO to do with that.
“But I don’t think Trump wins that defense in court with respect to above-top-secret docs.”
You can think whatever you want. The constitution says All executive power is vested in the president.
Absolutely anything that the constitution – or congress delegate to the executive is FULLY the power of the current president.
“ One thing that concerns me is the FBI not permitting anyone from the Trump team to remain inside to observe and document exactly what they searched and listed in their inventory. Also, why would they need to ask that security cameras be turned off?”
They were initially asked to turn them off, but Trump and family got to see the whole thing in CCTV.
They were initially asked to turn them off, but Trump and family got to see the whole thing in CCTV.
The whole thing huh. If they actually saw the whole thing as you say, then they would have been able to see each and every document being seized. Why then would the FBI prevent them from being present in person in the first place, and why would they bother asking to shut off security cameras? If the security camera footage doesn’t show clearly the actions of every agent from start to finish, and if it doesn’t show exactly (page for page) what was discovered there, then based on the FBI’s recent history involving President Trump, their will be reasonable doubt the “evidence” the FBI has came from this raid.
Olly: this is TOP SECRET and SECURE COMPARTMENTALIZED INFORMATION documents, which is the highest level of classification–the most dangerous things to our national security that our enemies could ever hope to get. The FBI isn’t going to flash these papers in front of a camera, which would amount to a form of recording of them, and thus, render the contents unsecure and possibly subject to copying and disclosure by anyone working for Trump who could get hold of them and do with them what they wanted. The only reason you have “doubt” is because you believe the lies on alt-right media. Trump does not dispute that he had them–his latest lie is that they belong to him. Republicans in Congress claim he wanted them for his “memoirs”.
Good response Olly, but one requires a bulldozer to break up that guys concrete.
Maybe a nuke. Aha! That was the “nuclear secrets” Trump was caching away.
The inventory of items seized from MaL listed perhaps seven or eight documents alleged to have TS classification. However, there is nothing from the DOJ to indicate that any of these documents had TS/SCI classification. This nonsense claim is from a now debunked WaPo article claiming that an anomalous source reported that Trump had nuclear secrets hidden somewhere at MaL (perhaps in Melania’s panty drawer?).
The property receipt was unsealed. It literally says
“2 – Leatherbound box of documents
“2A – Various classified/TS/SCI documents
“26 – Box Labelled A-42
“26A – Miscellaneous Top Secret Documents
“28 – Box Labelled A-73
“28A – Miscellaneous Top Secret Documents”
It did not specify “seven or eight documents alleged to have TS classification.” It listed more than 1 box, each of which had TS or TS/SCI documents in it, and additional boxes with Secret Documents in them.
I stand corrected, thank you. Like yourself, I am interested in understanding what documents were seized, whether they are or were classified, and what the documents actually are.
For example, in the case of the TS/SCI documents, what were they; secret plans for a submarine, something a former President should not have, or were they the so called ‘love letters’ from Kim Jong-un?
We have no idea which it is but my feeling is that it is much more likely to be in the range of the latter than the former.
Ultimately we will find out.
Or we wont – and that too will be telling.
there is one aspect of the raid that really piques my interest. Why did they go through Melania’s dresses? I have visions of Merrick Garland playing a drag queen like Gene Hackman in the movie with an all-star cast, filmed in South Beach, “the Birdcage”, late 1990s. Gene Hackman played a conservative Republican Senator and it provided lots of material for the humor. The actors were top notch with Robin Williams, Nathan Lane, Dianne Evelyn Wiest, Christine Baranski, and others. Terrific movie.
Why did Garland go after Melania’s wardrobe, aside from a deep sea fishing expedition, Trump Passports, high heels and full form fitting brassiere? The Babylon Bee did a great meme of Garland in Melania’s clothing. I doubt Garland will ever recover from this epic public relations disaster. Maybe he should go drag! RuPaul next!
Estovir was one of the extras. He speaks from experience.
They don’t deal with all of the facts as currently known. For example, they entirely ignore the Judge’s recent opinion about the reasons for and against unsealing the affidavit.
Fascists aren’t missing anything. Doj 100% corrupt