Since the start of the controversy over the Mar-a-Lago raid, I have called for the release of a redacted affidavit and the appointment of a special master to sort through the seized material, including alleged attorney-client privileged material. Indeed, I felt that this was one of the four failures of Attorney General Merrick Garland in not taking proactive steps to assure that public that this was not a pretextual raid to collect sensitive material for other investigative purposes. Now, District Judge Aileen Cannon has indicated an intent to make such an appointment. It was a belated request from the Trump team but, as I wrote yesterday, it would still have considerable value in the case.
Judge Cannon filed an order Saturday morning that “The Court hereby provides notice of its preliminary intent to appoint a special master in this case.”
Such an appointment should have been done before the Justice Department reviewed the material. The Department sought a ridiculously broad search warrant and Magistrate Paul Reinhart simply signed off on the order without considering the wide array of privileged material that could be seized. It adopted language so broad that it was 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 also allowed the seizure of any writing from Trump’s presidency.
However, a special master could still serve the same interests of transparency and legitimacy. The special master could divide these documents in classified material, unclassified but defense information, and unclassified material outside of the scope of the alleged crimes. The last category would then be returned.
That accounting could also offer basic descriptive information on the material without revealing their precise content or titles. The special master could describe material as related to national defense or nuclear weapons (as was previously leaked government sources). The government has already leaked that there was nuclear weapons material being sought. Confirming such general details can be done without giving details on the specific information or even titles for the documents to protect national security. In national security cases, including cases where I have served as counsel, such indexes and summaries are common.
Once again, as with the release of the redacted affidavit, Garland could have taken these steps to assure the public that the Department was not acting for political or improper purposes — or using excessive means to achieve those goals. He has refused every opportunity to do so while chastising those who question the integrity of his Department.
The release of the redacted affidavit shows that what Garland and his Department told the public was untrue about the inability to release a redacted affidavit without endangering the case or national security. As discussed yesterday, the redacted affidavit confirmed various key points on the legal and factual background. After opposing the release of even a single line, the government released whole pages that were manifestly suitable for public disclosure.
Once again, Garland waited to be forced to take this step rather than act on his own to address widespread concerns. His department has a documented history of officials misleading courts and filing false material in Trump-related investigations. This is yet another example of how Attorney General 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.
It was an imbecilic, doo-doo step for the feds to do this raid under the aegis of a magistrate in the first place. But then, they don’t seem to mind looking corrupt and stupid these days.
Professor Hamburger has questioned the constitutionality of using magistrates for search warrants and, as usual, he makes very good points.
In JT’s next column on this issue he may want to consider addressing the legal arguments made by Hamburger on magistrates and by Rivkin and Casey related to the records Act that Daniel mentioned below. I would welcome JT’s take on these arguments.
Concerned,
Me too. I hope the professor does give us his take on this important and foundational issue.
I would certainly like to hear Professor Turley’s perspective on this issue as well. I did hear Andy McCarthy’s perspective on the position taken by Rivkin and Casey concerning the Presidential Records Act that was published as an op-ed in the WSJ. Andy McCarthy did not seem to agree.
They managed to put a question mark on this magistrate too. His Trump hatred is too well known. Odd that the magistrate whose turn it was to handle search warrants happened to be unavailable and the feds rushed in to get the signature of a Trump hater. Is there any level where this doesn’t stink?
How about a category labeled “innocuous but marked classified”?
First frame of a comic strip shows two people across the table having conversation.
Man says, “It’s absurd for it to have a name that completely misrepresents what it does.”
Other person asks, “You mean ‘Inflation Reduction Act’?”
Man replies, “I mean the Department of Justice.”
Boom!
Impeach Merrick Garland!
“ The government has already leaked that there was nuclear weapons material being sought.”
Turley is a liar. The government hasn’t leaked anything. The “leaks” are coming from Trump’s own incompetent allies trying to help him make excuses for stealing government documents.
The government has never revealed what is in those highly classified documents. Turley is wrongly and disingenuously insinuating that the government is doing the leaking. He has never provided direct proof that they have.
What IS clear is that Trump is facing certain indictment due tot he fact that he continually refused for nearly TWO years to turn over documents that did NOT belong to him. That is a clear obstruction charge that even Turley couldn’t make an excuse for Trump. Focusing on Garland is just a distraction from the more serious legal problems that Trump faces.
There’s not every a certainty that the judge intending to appoint a special master has any jurisdiction to issue one.
“Turley is a liar.”
That says all one has to know about this character Svelaz.
So when you call people liars, that tells us about your character too, right?
No People like Anonymous the Stupid are natural liars and lie continuously. When I call them liars it is based on fact not opinion. I didn’t read Svelaz’s post so I don’t know, but to say “Turley is a liar.” is pretty stupid.
Moreover, to call Professor Turley a liar is just plain disrespectful. Professor Turley is the host of this wonderful blog which provides us with his perspective on issues of importance.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ When I call them liars it is based on fact not opinion. I didn’t read Svelaz’s post so I don’t know, but to say “Turley is a liar.” is pretty stupid.”
Wow you certainly earn the “anonymous the stupid monicker”.
You admitted you didn’t read the post which means you couldn’t determine what was said as fact or opinion. Turley is claiming the government is leaking info without direct proof. That’s called lying. Trump’s supporters have been the ones “leaking” information in an incompetent attempt at making excuses for Trump. Problem is they are making it worse. That’s why Turley can correctly be labeled a liar.
A lie is an intensional mistruth. Turley might simply be mistaken.
Amazing it is possible for us to agree.
nit picking I would say that a lie is a deliberate falsehood.
mistruth is to broad for my taste.
Honest people correct their mistakes. Turley often does not.
Turley corrects plenty of mistakes. You are just an arrogant fool who assumes job position is the center of the earth. Your mom might have thought that, but no one else. Egotistical maniac are two words that partially describe you. Turley doesn’t listen to every word you say.
Until it’s corrected it’s still a lie. If it’s unintentional then it’s just plain ignorance.
Svelaz: I’m interested in playing your game. You dispositively stated, “Trump’s supporters have been the ones ‘leaking’ information in an incompetent attempt at making excuses for Trump.”
You preceded that with, “Turley is claiming the government is leaking info without direct proof. That’s called lying.”
Soooo…What is your “direct proof” for your statement that “Trump’s supporters have been the ones ‘leaking?'” Is that called lying?
Lin, John Solomon, a conservative journalist and Trump ally, released a letter from NARA that stupidly contradicted trumps claims and it revealed the fact that there were highly classified documents involved. His lawyers have exposed details of the warrant when they haphazardly wrote a motion Thst by now everyone has correctly identified as a very foolish attempt at being a real motion.
The majority of “sources” purporting to show what the government was looking for come from anonymous sources from MAL. Not the government.
All have been poor attempts at making excuses for Trump. Turley is conflating those sources as government sources and using them to claim the DOJ is leaking information.
Gee, that’s strange, because THIS is what you said:
“’The government has already leaked that there was nuclear weapons material being sought [quoting Turley].’ Turley is a liar. The government hasn’t leaked anything. The ‘leaks’ are coming from Trump’s own…”
Indeed, as reported by multiple sources, it is the Washington Post- not Solomon, responsible for first mentioning “nuclear” secrets, from “sources close to the investigation.”
You wanted “direct proof” from the professor. I asked you for the same. You did not provide it. Thanks anyway.
“released a letter from NARA that stupidly contradicted trumps claims and it revealed the fact that there were highly classified documents involved.”
No, the letter merely documents what NARA has claimed. It does not prove classified documents were involved.
It proves NARA beleives classified documents were involved.
“His lawyers have exposed details of the warrant when they haphazardly wrote a motion Thst by now everyone has correctly identified as a very foolish attempt at being a real motion.”
They are entitled to do so. It is not a motion it is a lawsuit, and aparently the Judge does not think it is haphazzard and foolish.
My question is when do you cease buying nonsense from purported experts who are constantly wrong ?
“The majority of “sources” purporting to show what the government was looking for come from anonymous sources from MAL. Not the government.”
Again we do not know. When a source is actually anonymous – we can not know whether they are someone from DOJ/FBI telling the truth, someone from DOJ/FBI lying, some whistle blower telling the truth or lying. Or a Trump source telling the truth or lying. All of these are legal – save one – no one at DOJ/FBI can legal leak the truth about an investigation to the press. Even if the source tells the press something about themselves – neither the reporter nor the rest of us can now that is true. Even when sources are named – the press does not usually ask for government issued photo ID.
On increasingly rare occassions – reporters actually know their sources. But journalism has become very corrupt and that is rarely the case.
This is why journalists like Solomon are so important. The deal mostly with primary sources – attributable documents – such as the NARA document you cite.
While you do not appear to have the intellect to tell the difference between a claim and a fact, it is atleast true that NARA wrote what they wrote.
BTW I agree, I do not think that DOJ is leaking information. I beleive it is leaking lies, like it did during the collusion delusion – that is not a federal crime.
Nor do I think the leaks are coming exclusively from DOJ/FBI – or even government.
I would not be surprised at all if Trump’s people are running false flag leaks.
That is an excellent tactic to use against government. It takes an already untrustworthy DOJ/FBI and undermines that Trust further. And it is a beautiful tactic – even Garland can not be sure that some false leak did not come from the DOJ.
If those on the left are going to swat members of congress (or anyone) then pushing false flags that undermine the left is the least response required.
Stating something without proof is not lying.
Lying requires stating something you KNOW to be false.
These disinctions are important,.
There is no moral failure in error. Though error harms your credibility.
Lying is a moral failure – it does far more harm than just your credibility.
False accusations of lying are themselves lies.
When Clinton said “I did not have sex with that woman” – he LIED.
That is a moral error.
When someone is incorrect about a fact that is just an error.
John B say (S. Meyer),
“ There is no moral failure in error. Though error harms your credibility.
Lying is a moral failure – it does far more harm than just your credibility.
False accusations of lying are themselves lies.”
S. Meyer, leaving a false claim uncorrected when the correct information is available is still a lie. The dishonesty in not correcting it IS a moral failure.
My accusation is not false because Turley has not corrected his “error”. Until he does it’s still a lie.
“S. Meyer, leaving a false claim uncorrected when the correct information is available is still a lie. The dishonesty in not correcting it IS a moral failure.”
Nope. There are two forms of morality – positive morality – do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
And negative morality. Thou Shalt not kill.
The latter is generally the domain of law and government. We can legitimately use force to impose SOME aspects of negative morality.
Positive morality can not be imposed by force, is inherently infinite in scope and can not even imperfectly be attained.
My daughter was adopted from China. She spent her first two years in an orphanage that was a hell hole. I have done a great deal to help that and other chinese orphanages – positive morality.
But I can not save every orphaned child in china, or the world, or even this country.
I must pick and choose regarding positive moral “duties”.
You do not share the same values regarding positive moral duties that I do.
And that is perfectly OK, Different positive moral issues are important to you than are important to me.
I am not free to impose an obligation to improve orphanages in china on you.
You are not free to impose a duty to speak out against transgender discrimination on me.
And is where we actually part company – and you act immorally.
Because you do not grasp that you can not use force to make others share your positive moral priorities.
You are willing – through direct force or through government to require me and others to fund or confrom to YOUR positive moral values at the expense of our own priorities.
That directly relates to your claim regarding correcting purported errors.
I do actually correct my few errors. Something incredibly rare. You certaintly don’t.
I do not do so because I am morally obligated to do so.
I do so because correcting errors increases credibility.
Further, you can not make correcting error into a moral obligation – because people are blind to their own errors.
That is certainly true of you.
Your posts are daily rife with error, yet you have never corrected any errors.
Even now over this MAL raid – it is obvious that many posters are drowning in error. Because they are drowning in hypocracy.
There are very real differences in facts that implicate the law with respect to MAL vs Clinton – Trump was president, regardless of how details on the process get resolved he inarguably had the power to control the classification of documents. Clinton did not.
I can go on about the differences – but that is not the point.
Every left wing nut rushing to fit Trump up for an orange jumpsuit is a hypocrit as they were were busy arguing that the same laws they want to impose on Trump did not apply to clinton 6 years ago.
There are no differences in the law, and all differences in the facts favor Trump not clinton.
Anyone defending Clinton in 2016 but seeking to jail Trump in 2022 is a hypocrit – or worse.
But the converse is clearly not true.
I have not heard you or any on the left correct your position regarding Clinton – or applying the same position to Trump.
Most of the legal experts who are currently claiming Trump is guilty of something are the same ones claiming Clinton was innocent. Oblivious of the fact that there is no argument that makes Trump guilty and Clinton innocent, but there are dozens that end in Clinton’s guilt and Trump’s innocense.
The same is true regarding Biden’s current actions and Faux Impeachment I.
There is no legal moral, contitutional argument that results in Trump’s guilt with respect to seeking an investigation of Biden by Zelensky that does not make Biden all the more guilty for seeking an investigation of Trump by DOJ
But there are plenty of ways to argue the converse – that going after Trump on this set of facts is criminally pollitically corrupt, while Going after Biden was not.
Regardless, you have not corrected your errors on any of this.
According to YOUR standards that makes you a LIAR.
Is that so ?
We still get nonsense from you and others trying to claim russian collusion, or that the Biden family corruption claims are russian disinformation or a right wing conspriacy theory.
You continue to repeat things that not only are wrong – but could not possibly be right at this time.
Without correction.
Does that make you a liar ?
You lie when you intentionally make statements you know are wrong.
Not when you say stupid things or fail to correct mistakes in the past.
If YOU were morally obligated to correct all past error – you would have no time to live.
“My accusation is not false because Turley has not corrected his “error”. Until he does it’s still a lie.”
False.
Western moral principles evolved over centuries – milenia or trial and error, specifically to wipe out nonsense such as this.
I addressed only a few of the MANY reasons your moral scheme does not work above.
A requirement of any moral principle is that it must work universally.
Your claim violates the catagorical imperative
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”[
Your claimed moral principle – that someone lies when they do not correct error – fails the catagorical imperative,
Therefore it is NOT a moral principle.
BTW SM is a completely different person. We have similar but not identical views.
It is not leaking if the source is not within government.
Are Trump sources providing false information to the media ?
I do not know. But if that is true it is a good tactic, that would not work if the media
actually was real journalists.
I suspect that claim is false. But honestly it does not matter.
If Trump sources are providing false stories to the media to make DOJ look bad
good for them. those on the left do that all the time.
LBJ was famous for it.
Regardless, it is time for republicans to play by the same rules as democrats.
“by any means necescary”
John B. Say (S. Meyer, Alan) says,
“ It is not leaking if the source is not within government.”
It is leaking if the source is leaking government information they have in possession when the government is not leaking it.
“ Are Trump sources providing false information to the media ?”
Yes. How do we know? Because the government keeps putting out contradictory evidence.
“ But if that is true it is a good tactic, that would not work if the media
actually was real journalists.”
It’s a really bad tactic, especially when Trump’s team is being obviously incompetent.
“ If Trump sources are providing false stories to the media to make DOJ look bad
good for them.”
That means they are indeed lying and cannot be taken seriously. This is why they are getting caught making stuff up and getting in bigger and bigger trouble legally. That’s why legal experts are laughing at Trump’s lawyers and himself. They are complete idiots.
Svelaz,
John Say and S Meyer are not the same person. John has a new avatar, but he is still the same wordy, arrogant, oft-mistaken person as he was before. I consider him a waste of time, as he has little interest in learning when he’s wrong, but he’s not the troll that Meyer is.
John Say may or may not be some of those things you say, but most of the times John is right.
Most of the times Anonymous the Stupid is wrong and is upset because John makes him look bad.
We are not the same person but there is no way Anonymous the Stupid knows that for sure. He is guessing and this is one of the few times Anonymous the Stupid guessed correctly.
Svelaz is clueless. He should stick to playing with his toes.
I do not understand why various posters here fixate on who is purportedly pretending to be who.
Those here can beleive or not, that I post primarily as JBsay. rarely under my own name, rarely as asmith. mfrieman, rcoase – though I do not think ever on this blog, and I am not SM, or anyone else.
I am not sure why anyone thinks I would fake being a different poster.
But I can not stop them from doing so.
I recently changed my JBsay gravatar – specifically as a FU response to DOJ/FBI’s nonsense that flags of the american revolution are somehow evidence of domestic terrorism.
I am not SM, we differ on a number of issues. But we do share some common ground.
Regardless, if some are compelled to think he is me or I am him – that is their problem
One I do not understand.
As with so many left wing nut claims:
False,
and irrelevant even if True.
Anonymous, John B say, is far more articulate than these posts have been. They have the same syntax and poor sentence structure that S. Meyer writes regularly. John B. Say is much more coherent then these posts purporting to be John B. Say.
Svelaz, I don’t agree. In my experience, John vomits responses, often posting multiple long unedited comments in response to a single comment from someone else. He did that under his old avatar, and he’s doing it now. I’ve never found his comments to be particularly articulate. He also has several consistent typos (e.g., a consistent misspelling of Ashli Babbitt’s first name). Is there anything that would convince you that it’s the same person, other than a return to his old avatar?
ATS, you don’t have the critical thinking skills to deal with the information John provides. That is why you resort to correcting spelling errors. He writes a lot and fast. Of course there are spelling errors. He spends his time on critical thinking skills and you spend yours on spelling. LOL
Yes, we know that you value spelling and grammar over substance.
I would note, that nowhere in your diatribe are the words, false, or inaccurate.
I do not give a schiff over your impression of my articulateness.
Frankly I do not give a schiff over anyone’s.
As I have remarked repeated, no one is paying me for this. I am doing it for my own pleasure.
I am not going to waste time on any of the things that you remarked on in your post.
When I am actually paid to write – I have been published many times. I go to a great deal of trouble to address all of those issues.
Anonymous, I swear John B. Say sounds a lot like S. Meyers lately. You might be right, but the syntax is very close which leads to my suspicion.
This is just to help you out Svelaz. John and I are different people and it should be obvious based on syntax and methodology. That it isn’t is your problem. John makes a lot of mistakes because he writes so much and so fast without proofreading, but overall his knowledge and critical thinking skills are among the best. I also don’t pay much attention to my writing style though it is good. I generally am doing two things at once in between other activities so sometimes I am picking up on a response where I left off. Right now I am listening to the news on Tivo.
SM
I would further note that sometimes I post from a desktop, more frequently from a laptop, and less frequently from a smart phone while traveling for work.
Each has its own problems. My laptop particularly has a jumpy cursor and periodically I find myself typing in the middle of the prior paragraph. Other letters get dropped or re-arranged.
I am 64 and have been using computers since I was 16. I have developed a ten finger hunt and peck method that is impressively fast, but has a high number of keystroke errors – letters missing out of order, …
Again – when I am paid to write – I care.
No one is paying me to write here.
But if someone wishes to – I will be happy to get paid for my writing.
Getting paid to do something – is a compliment.
“My laptop particularly has a jumpy cursor and periodically I find myself typing in the middle of the prior paragraph.”
John, if you haven’t found a reason for the jumpy cursor, maybe it is due to the base of your thumb inadvertently touching the trackpad. Should that be the case, place tape in the area of the trackpad where you might be making contact, but keep the tape inside the borders to prevent other problems.
I am aware of that. I use Linux, which actually has a far better system for controlling what is called thumb detection.
But it must be tuned for each laptop and trackpad. As of yet I have not been infuriated enough to learn how to tune it.
I will likely get it right – or a linux update will fix it just about the time I decide to replace the laptop.
There are other related issues – but they do not effect my posting.
Linux has the wrong logical size for the touchpad – so the left click area on the touchpad is huge, and the right click area is only about 1/4″ of the lower right corner.
This happens every time I upgrade laptops. It does not happen on disktops or with mice.
My wife has the same problems on windows – she just disabled the touchpad and uses a mouse.
Regardless, this is my problem. I am not making some excuse. When I care enough I will fix it.
Right now I do not.
I like linux alot, but more importantly 50% of my embedded software work is linux. None of it is windows, and I need to be proficient in linux.
John, I am lazier and more pragmatic than you. I skip all the worry and put a piece tape on the trackpad to solve the problem. Put it within the edges.
This works for all operating systems and when there are updates, I don’t have to change the tape.
Do I thank you for the compliments ?
Regardless, all posts I am aware of under the name jbsay at thebrokenwindow.net are from the same person.
Not SM.
I can not prevent you from believing otherwise.
Though I believe it is possible using WP to atleast verify the common source for postings.
I am not interested enough to check that out.
I do not give a schiff about the bizzare intrigues so many here get into over who is posting under multipl aliases are pretending to be someone else.
It is just stupid.
I try to always post under the same name. I do so to build a reputation for credibility.
On rare occasions I hit post without filling in my name, or accidently post under one of my other WP accounts.
but 99.99% of the time on turley.org I post as jbsay, and no one else does.
If someone was trying to fake being jbsay – I would probably raise that with Darren – and that would damage my reputation.
I do not think anyone else here has ever corrected an error they have made,
I have.
If you wish to discuss specific assertions I have made that you think are in error – I would be happy to do so.
Blanket unsubstantiated claims of error are just ad hominem – fallacy.
“I do not think anyone else here has ever corrected an error they have made,”
You’re wrong about that. I’ve corrected several mistakes I’ve made. Here are two examples:
* https://jonathanturley.org/2022/08/23/litigation-by-leak-government-officials-leak-new-details-on-the-mar-a-lago-raid-while-continuing-to-oppose-disclosures-in-court/comment-page-2/#comment-2216334
* https://jonathanturley.org/2022/08/22/how-merrick-garland-missed-four-chances-to-earn-the-public-trust-on-mar-a-lago/comment-page-4/#comment-2215819
I have no desire to get into yet another discussion of your mistakes with you. And no, “Blanket unsubstantiated claims of error” are NOT ad hominem (this is another instance of mischaracterizing what is/isn’t ad hom). Ad hom has a specific form: “if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself” (iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AdHominem) I wasn’t addressing any specific argument you’d made, simply characterizing you as distinct from Meyer. I did not suggest that your errors undermined any specific argument. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t.
As you keep posting as anonymous it is both impossible to tell if the minor corrections you linked are yours.
But they are real though inconsequential
“Blanket unsubstantiated claims of error” are NOT ad hominem ”
Of course it is, it is also (redundantly) fallacy – in fact several fallacies.
It is an incredibly broad naked and unsupported claim of error.
Without substantiation it is just a personal attack.
Further it is made in an anonymous posting with no real ability to validate your history – despite the links you provided.
And please cut the stupid defintion games. Ad hominem is latin for “to the person”
There are few if any instances in which arguments about your opponent are not fallacy – ad hominem.
If you want to claim error – you argue the actual error(s) – not the person.
While no one here – myself included entirely avoids fallacy – particularly ad hominem.
Some of us – myself in particular, atleast specifically address the ACTUAL errors those we are insulting have made.
Rather than the typical left wing nut vague nonsense of “Blanket unsubstantiated claims of error”
Which is multiple fallacies all in one ball.
I do not give a schiff about your desires.
Is it OK for me to assert that you are a pedophile and shift to “I have no desire to get into yet another discussion of your mistakes with you” ?
You have made massively broad claims of error on my part.
Offered nothing to allow anyone to have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Not only is the phrase you cited ad hominem – your entire post is.
You are not arguing the issue. You are not arguing any issue at all.
You are making vague claims of personal failure (ad hominem) without providing any support.
I would further note that your post is self evidently ad hominem.
Read the post – is is possible to go from your post directly to arguing an issue ?
There is no possible rebutle to your post that is not either about YOU or ME – ad hominem – To the person.
That is precisely why ad hominem is a fallacy – because it derails legitimate debate over issues.
Pretty much all fallacies do that.
The unique attribute of ad hominem is that it transforms the argument into one about the debaters rather than the issue.
If you have no desire to do something then don’t.
But do not play games.
No, John, AGAIN, not all insults are ad hominem. See the section titled “Not an Ad Hominem” here: https://fallacyinlogic.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/
What I posted falls in the “A simple insult” category.
“Without substantiation it is just a personal attack.”
Correct! But not an ad hominem fallacy.
Learn the difference between ad hom and not ad hom.
This is stupid – you seem to think that some source that you dig up is the only authorative source for the meaning of ad hominem,
This is a typical left wing nut tactic to control the meaning of words,
All arguments “to the person” are ad hominem – whether they are insults or not
You have it backwards – ad hominem is broader than insult, not narrower.
These left wing nut argument over defintions are STUPID.
Even successfully changing the definition of words – Does NOT alter reality.
No matter what YOU choose to call it – YOUR argument is FALLACY
If it helps you to better grasp this – assume that “zigrobny” is the FALLACY of making an argument – to the person, instead of the issue.
You are engaged in the fallacy of zigrobny.
It should not be necescary to explain this to an intelligent person.
A means of arguing is fallacious because it derails the argument and because it does not lead logically to the truth.
Trying to change the defintion of a fallacy does not alter the fact that shifting an argument “to the person” – is fallacy and does not get to the truth.
I would further note that your responses are Multiply fallacious.
I do not think you are really this stupid.
So do not behave like it.
We have wasted innumerable posts arguing over nonsense that has nothing at all to do with any meaningful issue.
You have redirected the argument to be about me – argument “to the person”, rather than about the actual issues
That is a sure sign that you are engaged in fallacy.
YOU chose to shift the argument – just as you are NOW trying to shift the argument to the correct label for YOUR fallacious response.
It is Self evident that you are argument fallaciously – dishonestly, outside of actual logic, because YOU have driven the argument away from the issue.
Grow up. Take responsibility for your own posts.
If you want me to take you seriously – argue the issues.
If you think an assertion is in error – demonstrate the error – with Facts, logic, and reason.
Not with fallacious Bull Schiff.
You can believe whatever you want, but beleif is not argument.
Wikipedia – could I possibly find a more left polluted site ?
Regardless from Wikipedia
“Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem (Latin for ‘argument to the person’), refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious.
Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is “A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong”.
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning occurs where the validity of an argument is not based on deduction or syllogism, but on an attribute of the person putting it forward.”
When you shift to arguing about the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument, your response is fallacy, and ONE of the possibly many fallacies is “ad hominem”.
Most arguments here – including some of mine include insults as well a arguments. That is bad form.
It is the inclusion of fallacious ad hominem into what may otherwise be valid argument.
It risks derailing the debate from the issue to the person.
But you did not mix fallacy and argument – you responded with pure fallacy.
There is is then no possible legitimate means to continue the original debate – hence your response was fallacy.
And the debate if it continues at all shifts to something else – such as attributes of the arguer – again hence fallacy, hence ad hominem.
“All arguments “to the person” are ad hominem – whether they are insults or not”
They are not all an ad hominem fallacy. I am discussing the fallacy, as you made the false claim “Blanket unsubstantiated claims of error are just ad hominem – fallacy.”
They are all fallacy more certainly than they are ad hominem.
You really are clueless
A fallacy is an argument that by form moves you further from a logically valid argument.
Shifting the argument from the issue – to most anything else – such as the person you are arguing about is ALWAYS fallacy.
Even if it is not ad hominem.
You can know for certain that if you are moving further from the actual issues being debated – one party is engaged in fallacy.
You continue to try to drive the argument away from the original issues.
Rather than directly address whatever errors you think I have made in prior arguments.
You want to shift the dicussion to me, to definitions, to anything but actually asserting specific and testable claims of error.
You started with a non-specific over generalization – that was also ad hominem, and shifted into a debate about what is a falacy and what is ad hominem.
One both issues you were both irrelevant, off point, fallacious and wrong.
We can continue down this stupid rathole all you want. And I will continue to point out the logical errors and fallacies and other mistakes you make – which will be trivial specifically because you are ducking the issue that YOUR raised.
If my posts are chock full of errors, you should have no trouble identifying ONE, that we can directly debate.
Or we can continue this idiotic nonsense that is typical of left wing nuts where you do everything possible to avoid actually debating an issue. Regardless of the specific named informal logical fallacy that is precisely what informal fallacies are all about
hiding the ball, evasion, redirection, mis representation.
John, you are providing an excellent example of how you make mistaken claims and are disinterested in learning.
ATS, why are you dancing around the subject. Why don’t you spell it out? You prefer innuendo to honesty.
“John, you are providing an excellent example of how you make mistaken claims and are disinterested in learning .”
If that were true it would be easy for you to demonstrate.
Yet, you do not try.
The debate over ad hominem and fallacy is tangential, and yet you lost – badly.
But even had you won somehow – you still would have been ducking the issue,
avoiding the argument – trying to move from demonstrating my alleged error, to arguing about unrelated Bull Schiff.
And even that you can not manage.
I would much prefer to address actual issues. But if you insist on dragging everything down a rathole.
Go for it.
You can’t even manage to make a point in he rathole of your chosing.
John, it’s not at all tangential to the reason I made the claim, which was a comment to Svelaz about why I believe you are the same person that used to post under the name John Say, even though your avatar has changed.
As is often the case, you have trouble keeping track of the topic.
“John, it’s not at all tangential to the reason I made the claim”
The rest of us have no idea what is in your head.
“which was a comment to Svelaz about why I believe you are the same person that used to post under the name John Say, even though your avatar has changed.”
While you are correct, why is anyone here – right or left, so fixated on who is who and who is posting under multiple identities ?
Or forging being someone else.
I can assure you that if someone else tries to Post as John B Say – that I will confront them.
Because that would be a deliberate effort to dilute the credibility and and reputation I have built as JBsay.
If I or others post under multiple identities (which I do not), that is their own choice. If you wish to dilute your own credibility or reputation using multiple identities – go for it. On a different blog I used multiple identities because WordPress was randomly blocking posts based on ID – that was happening to many other posters, the Blog owner confirmed he was not censoring my posts and I worked arround the problem by cycling through 5 different ID’s all of which were for different economists.
Everyone knew the posts were mine.
regardless, it is rare that posting under multiple id’s is a good idea, but it is not something that there is a rational reason for others to object to.
I personally confront people who post anonymously – but only when they try to own a history. You sacrifice credibility and reputation when you post as anonymous.
“As is often the case, you have trouble keeping track of the topic.”
Please reread your own posts, My short response is “can I buy a noun ?”
You seem to think that everyone will read the prior 5 posts in a thread – with a threading system that often makes that impossible to decipher what you are saying in your current post.
You should not be surprised when people misperceive what you are saying.
Or correctly perceive what you are saying, as you use that ambigutity to hide your error.
I do not give a crap about your spelling.
But you could spend more time making your posts clear.
I assume when someones post is ambiguous that their thoughts are muddled.
Most of us think in words, if you can not write clearly, why should we beleive you can think clearly ?
And quit blaming others for your lack of clarity.
“It is leaking if the source is leaking government information they have in possession when the government is not leaking it.”
Nope.
You are free to share your tax return with anyone or no one. Government is not.
You are free to share warrants, subpeona’s government communications you receive with anyone. Government is not.
The right to privacy like ALL rights belongs to the individual, not government.
““ Are Trump sources providing false information to the media ?”
Yes. How do we know? Because the government keeps putting out contradictory evidence.”
Over the course of the past 6 years – Trump’s public remarks have been correct.
Government leaks have been false.
There is very very little government information that has actually been made public – except by Trump so far.
““ But if that is true it is a good tactic, that would not work if the media
actually was real journalists.”
It’s a really bad tactic, especially when Trump’s team is being obviously incompetent.”
They are doing quite well – if not with you.
I would further suggest looking up the qualifications of Trump’s lawyer that you keep maligning.
She has a solid bachelors degree and 4 advanced degrees, as well as service in the marines,
She was a JAG officer
and that is a small portion of her qualifications.
She has far more qualifications than Reinhart, as an example.
““ If Trump sources are providing false stories to the media to make DOJ look bad
good for them.”
That means they are indeed lying and cannot be taken seriously. This is why they are getting caught making stuff up and getting in bigger and bigger trouble legally. That’s why legal experts are laughing at Trump’s lawyers and himself. They are complete idiots.”
Please look up “false flag” – your reply clearly demonstrates you did not understand what I said.
With respect to Trump’s lawyers – the lead who you maligned, has 4 degrees – 3 advanced, marine service, and a JAG officer.
She is far more qualified than magistrate Rienhart. Probably more qualified than many law professors.
I would note YOUR legal experts said the Trump lawsuit would go nowhere.
Well the federal judge has already issued a preliminary decision to appoint a special master.
Seems Trump’s lawyers might no more than your faux legal experts.
Reply
So that we are clear – as you do not seem to grasp what a false flag is.
If some Trump affliated source implied they were from DOJ/FBI or knew something from DOJ/FBI and leaked to WaPo that Trump had classified nuclear doccuments – knowing that he did not.
That would create a fake story that would briefly make Trump look bad – get a bunch of left wing shrews to make stupid remarks. create unrealistic expectations that DOJ/FBI would be frog marching Trump tomorow, and frustrating Garland – because he can not know that the leak did not come from DOJ/FBI, regardless it makes Garland look bad – to both the right and the left. ‘
Absolutely that would be Trump or his people “lying”. but the left does it all the time.
Turn about is fair play.
And this tactic is very effective in undermining the credibility of DOJ/FBI when their credibility is already poor.
Regardless, if you do not want Trump or republicans to engage in immoral tactics – do not do so yourself.
Given what Trump had to deal with as president – with an abundance of fraudulent leaks.
I would encourage him to use the same tactics to undermine the credibility of those who are corruptly perusing him.
“You admitted you didn’t read the post which means you couldn’t determine what was said as fact or opinion.”
You were Stupid from the start and history has taught everyone that you are almost always stupid from the start to the end.
When one sees stupid at the start of a response one would be stupid to continue or a masochist.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
You were stupid for not reading the post and then criticized it as not being able to tell fact from opinion. You’re arguing like a 5 year old. It explains a lot.
Svelaz, you lie and make things up. When proof in writing is shown, you disregard it and make the same claims. Below is an example of you repeatedly accusing others that they didn’t post something. You blame others for your own foolishness. After proof is provided with links to other postings, you continue to deny its existence and run away to repeat the lies later.
You talk about sentence structure because you think that has meaning on this type of list. It doesn’t. My sentence structure is fine, but even if it wasn’t, your focus is meaningless because we are talking about critical thinking skills. You don’t have them.
Here is the post with two links proving your lies or ineptitude.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/21/the-other-big-lie-democrats-fuel-doubts-over-the-legitimacy-of-the-coming-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-2153325
“House Republicans must impeach Attorney General Garland and FBI Director Wray for their unprecedented and destructive politicization of the Justice Department, when they reclaim power in January. And over the long term, House and Senate Republicans must dismantle and rebuild the FBI, so political raids like this never happen again. We cannot allow our law enforcement agencies to become third-world political hit squads.”
https://www.newsweek.com/garland-wray-must-impeached-unconscionable-trump-raid-opinion-1733523
“ Such an appointment should have been done before the Justice Department reviewed the material. The Department sought a ridiculously broad search warrant and Magistrate Paul Reinhart simply signed off on the order without considering the wide array of privileged material that could be seized.”
Turley must really be struggling to make sense of Trump’s incompetence handling this case. You gotta admit he is not doing a very good job.
Turley continues to demonstrate that he may be just as incompetent or clueless at least. The necessity of the warrant being so broad was justified by the nature of Trump’s refusal to cooperate with NARA and the DOJ as shown by his own lawyers and allies poor attempts at making excuses. For nearly two full years Trump was given AMPLE time to turn over those documents even before issuing a subpoena. Turley’s ridiculously stupid suggestion of issuing a second subpoena suggests that ignoring the first is ok. As a lawyer, ANY lawyer for that fact, should know that disregarding and LYING after a subpoena was issued the government doesn’t have any reason to believe you are being honest which is what trump did. So issuing a broad warrant is appropriate given the nature of the sensitivity of the classified documents. Turley conveniently ignores this pertinent fact.
Garland is not the problem. It’s Trump and his cadre of incompetent lawyers. The FBI has already gone thru the documents by now and any appointment of a special master is pointless. The FBI went thru the first 15 boxes pretty quickly the first time around and the fact that they have a pretty good idea what to look for negates they whole point of a special master. Turley is blaming the wrong people. He should be chastising Trump’s lawyers and their laughable attempts at filing motions. The first attempt was a disastrous mess. The second attempt obviously too late according to Turley himself. Turley should be feeling quite foolish in trying to defend this poor lawyerly behavior from trump’s team. Not Garland.
Yes, we are duty bound to always blame the victims of any government malfeasance. Likewise rape victims must be blamed because they didn’t keep their legs shut. Domestic violence victims are to blame because they shouldn’t have antagonized the “wife beaters”. Banks can’t blame bank robbers, the banks shouldn’t have kept money around, this too is clearly the bank’s fault.
You’re assuming “government malfeasance” but haven’t shown any here.
The court of public opinion has taken “judicial notice” of the existence of widespread government malfeasance.
Raiding the home of a former president over documenting handling is malfeasance
Nonsense. Some of those documents are marked TS/SCI.
Some of those documents are marked TS/SCI.
I noticed people are starting to use the modifier,”marked” as more people realize the President has full authority to declassify.
But he didn’t.
David, there is no set way for the President to declassify documents and the ability to declassify remains with the President. Unless you can find a law that trumps all other rules and laws on this subject specifying how the President goes about declassifying, I think the President can blink once silently and declassify anything he wishes.
If he is dealing with a foreign leader, and wants to reveal classified information, he can do so on the spot. His release automatically declassifies it.
There is an EO which specifies the procedure.
If you wish look at all the EO’s and report back, but before doing so refer to court decisions, the PRA and a multiplicity of other things. In the end the President can declassify at his will without any formal declaration being required.
Not when those docs are national defense information records that the former President illegally has in his possession.
But, but, but: Turley is being paid to ignore the obvious and come up with reasons to blame everyone else for Trump’s theft and lying and forcing the FBI to get a search warrant. Turley is paid to try to make it sound that everyone is wrong except Trump.
The facts are really straightforward: Trump, the sore loser who still won’t admit he lost in 2020, grabbed up top secret and even higher-classified documents and took them to Florida AFTER being told he couldn’t by Cipollone. THEN, played footsie with the NARA for over 1.5 years, went through the papers and turned over 15 boxes that included extraneous materials like newspapers and magazines as well as classified documents. His lawyer lied about all of them being returned. THEN he hooked up with some loudmouth at Judicial Watch who isn’t a lawyer, and who told him the papers belonged to him. He forced the DOJ to get involved and they got a search warrant that turned up 24 more boxes. Now, he’s politicizing his theft as further proof of a governmental “witch hunt”, that the “deep state” is out to get him because they are “afraid” of him, and so is also fundraising over it. All of this is Trump’s fault. So, all Turley can do is complain about: 1. why didn’t they get a 2d subpoena (because the law doesn’t requre it, and Trump didn’t hand over everything the first time–why would the DOJ believe he would do so a second time?); 2. the warrant was overbroad (what was the NARA supposed to do–let him keep the papers? They are duty-bound to preserve them). Trump has had over a year and half to give them back. Enough is enough. 3. somehow, Trump was owed deference because he had been the POTUS. Trump didn’t honor his oath to protect and defend the Constitution–he acted like the petulant spoiled brat he is. He should be under arrest now. Anyone else would be.
‘The DOJ/FBI create a pretext to indict Trump, then leak to the NY Times, which then has its Editorial Board call for Trump’s indictment.
You’d think they’d get vertigo from their corrupt, circular clusterf*ck’ @monicacrowley
In the pursuit of Trump, two noteworthy rights have fallen by the wayside:
One constitutional protection down the drain:
It was illegal to use intelligence agencies to spy on citizens without the “rare exceptions” of the FISA courts.
Not only did authorities lie to get approval to spy on citizens, they are routinely rubber stamped as “approved”. So far, their has been no penalty for breaking several laws, including lying to the judges.
Two constitutional protection down the drain:
You used to need to get warrants to find out where Joe Blow’s phone was on a certain date. Not only did the FBI ask carriers for all phone records of all people in a geographic area, the carriers did it without a warrant. It was illegal for the FBI to ask, and it was illegal for the carriers to gave.
No one adjudicated these two, now look where we are.
JT: “However, a special master could still serve the same interests of transparency and legitimacy.”
We’ll see, Professor. If the swamp chooses the special master, it’s a tossup between Hunter Biden and Mr. Magoo.
Professor Turley is incorrect about the purported redactions. The DOJ just announced that there were actually no redactions whatsoever.
“The DOJ has ultimately made no redactions whatsoever to the affidavit. Our dedicated team of attorneys have merely used a Hi-Liter pen to emphasize the key points, but decided that–as a matter of full transparency–instead of Yellow highlighting, to use Black highlighting to really draw attention to those key points. The DOJ would never, ever, intentionally do anything wrong or illegal, except without good cause, such as the old standby “national security” reasons.”–Merrwreck Garland.
The world’s foremost authority on Constitutional Law, Professor Laurence H. Tribe at Harvard University, has given the DOJ a thumbs-up on everything it’s done. So that should satisfy any concerns anyone may have about our venerated two-tiered system of justice.
“–as a matter of full transparency–instead of Yellow highlighting, to use Black highlighting to really draw attention to those key points.”
Really good one! 😀
Agreed!
I have a number of comments about all this:
1. Classification. This seems to be largely beside the point, because none of the offences set out in the statutes cited depend on the documents being classified. The references to classification appear to be intended to imply relevance to national defence. This is a weak implication because of constant over classification. So, whether documents marked as classified remained classified or were declassified by Trump before he left office is neither here nor there from a legal standpoint. From what I can tell, Presidents have the constitutional authority to declassify whatever they want, and are not bound by any procedural requirements, but their doing so does not appear to affect the legal position under the statutes.
2. Presidential Records Act. Rivkin and Casey argue in a WSJ op ed that the PRA gives Trump the right to hold on to presidential records pending resolution of their status. Because this statute is specific, they argue that it is not overridden by the general statutes cited in the warrant and affidavit. Accordingly, they can see no probable cause that a crime was committed.
3. Waiver of Executive Privilege. The Biden administration appears to have delegated the decision to waive privilege on these documents to the head of the National Archives. Even if lawful, this is a loose way of proceeding.
4. Delay. The nature of the documents at MAL was known to the DOJ at the latest from February. That documents allegedly of concern remained in MAL was known to DOJ at the latest in early June. The only known request of Trump from that point was to add a lock and provide surveillance video, which he did. Garland is reported to have considered the warrant for a couple of weeks before signing off. If there really were a national security risk, this is not how it should have been handled; a lot more urgency would have been appropriate.
5. The Warrant. We have seen no evidence that a search and seizure was the only alternative available to resolving this apparent dispute over Trump’s continuing possession and securing of documents. The warrant was many things, but not narrowly drawn. Thus, Garland has so far failed to show that the two conditions he set out in his public statement have been met.
6. Special Master. I agree with Professor Turley that appointing a special master is a good idea. I am skeptical, however, that his mandate will be as broad as Turley hopes, or that much in the way of public disclosure of the nature of the documents involved will result.
7. 4th Amendment. It is disconcerting that unless and until an indictment is obtained and motions to suppress are in order, there is so little that can be done to challenge the legitimacy of a warrant. This appears to be a weakness in the constitutional protection afforded by the 4th Amendment.
Daniel,
1. Presidents are bound by Executive Order 13526 unless they write an EO modifying it. Trump did not modify it.
2. You might want to read some of the critiques by lawyers of Rivkin and Casey’s argument. An example from Jack Goldsmith: https://www.lawfareblog.com/presidential-records-act-and-mar-lago-documents
Also, their argument is based on the conditional “if the Justice Department’s sole complaint is that Mr. Trump had in his possession presidential records he took with him from the White House…,” when we now know that not to be the case.
3. It’s a whole lot less loose than claiming that one has a standing order to declassify whatever one takes.
4. Re: “The only known request of Trump from that point was to add a lock,” you can see Bratt’s letter in the unredacted portion of the affidavit, and he did not ask Trump to add a lock. He asked him to secure the room, and the kind of security is spelled out in 32 CFR Parts 2001 and 2003.
Re: “If there really were a national security risk, this is not how it should have been handled,” why? It had already been over a year. The unprecedented nature of a search of a former President’s residence surely slowed it to some extent. What are you proposing should have been the timeline instead?
5. Trump had already been asked to turn everything over but hadn’t, and had already been subpoenaed for all of the documents but still had a lot of them illegally in his possession.
6. Seems a little late for a special master and also an odd request when Trump is not asserting attorney-client privilege and cannot assert *executive* privilege agains the *Executive* Branch.
7. Trump’s lawyers are free to raise 4th Amendment objections in the case before Judge Cannon.
The intent of was to scoop up “accidentally” everything they weren’t allowed to have, it’s a typical tactic LE uses to view what they’re not supposed to.
Interested parties aren’t protecting anyone but themselves.
Hopefully someone actually impartial is appointed.
?
It all makes no sense. No matter what conspiracy theories get disseminated the feds keep taking actions which seem to lend credibility to any theory thrown out by Trump OR by others. “Stupid” does not encompass a description of the DOJ/FBI conduct
So what? The maybe 5% of the documents that are privileged will be removed. The other 95% will still be more then enough to show Trump is a criminal.
Sorry. From jump street this has been the polar opposite of transparency and full disclosure. In a universe where those jonesing for Trump have no problem with defunding police, opposing bail, looking the other way re crime, and only talking up events if the narrative fits you really & very truly miss the point
It’s not supposed to be transparent!!
Searches normally do not become transparent unless/until the person is indicted.
One needs a basis for a search. News articles aren’t sufficient. You and Sammy need to go on a honeymoon.
The judge ruled and reaffirmed that there was a legitimate basis for the search. The parts of the affidavit that have been unsealed confirm it.
The judge ruled and reaffirmed that there was a legitimate basis
DoJ / FBI have a history of lying in warrants and Woods file to the FISA Judges. Altering an email made the news. But nary a peep about the 3 warrant extensions. Those extensions require the govt prove to the judge, information is still flowing from the warrant and still need to be active. We all know its a lie. I’ll leave it to the experts as to why those lying when filing for extensions are not in jail. In my mind Chief Justice Roberts is derelict is supervising the FISA judges.
Lying to a magistrate judge is no risk to the DoJ / FBI, after suffering no consequences lying to FISA judge.
“I have called for the release of a redacted affidavit and the appointment of a special master to sort through the seized material, including alleged attorney-client privileged material”
Trump’s lawyers haven’t claimed that there’s any attorney-client privileged material.
“District Judge Aileen Cannon has indicated an intent to make such an appointment.”
A stupid thing for her to do before even seeing the DOJ’s response to the Trump filing — because Trump’s lawyers f’d up and still haven’t even served the DOJ in this case.
“It was a belated request from the Trump team but, as I wrote yesterday, it would still have considerable value in the case.”
Maybe, but since it comes so late, the DOJ may already be done with its preliminary review.
“The special master could divide these documents in classified material, unclassified but defense information, and unclassified material outside of the scope of the alleged crimes.”
The FBI has already identified and returned some of the latter, such as Trump’s passports.
“nuclear weapons (as was previously leaked government sources).”
You have no idea whether there was a leak or it that info came from Trump’s side.
“Once again, Garland waited to be forced to take this step”
Yes, because refusing to disclose an affidavit prior to indictment is the DOJ’s rule!! He’s doing his job. If you don’t like the rule, condemn the rule, not the person abiding by it.
I will respond briefly to several of your criticisms of JT’s comments. 1) Lack of assertion of attorney-client privilege. “A so-called special master should be allowed to return to Trump any documents that are protected by attorney-client privilege before prosecutors are allowed to see them, according to the suit filed Monday in West Palm Beach, Florida.” The suit was filed by Trump’s lawyers. [news.bloomberglaw.com/white-collar-and-criminal-law/trump-sues-for-neutral-review-of-seized-mar-a-lago-documents-1] 2) The FBI may already have completed its review. Perhaps, but as long as any documents remain in the FBI’s possession, the greater the risk that they will be leaked to enemies of Trump. 3) Trump could have been the source of the leak that the documents contained “nuclear secrets”. The WP said that the source was “a person familiar with the investigation”, which strongly implies that it was the FBI or DOJ. The WP wouldn’t lie to us. 4) DOJ’s rule against disclosing affidavits. Criminal Rule 41g states: “Motion to Return Property. . . . The court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion. . . .” This broad wording seems to justify the reviewing magistrate in demanding to see any document relating to a pretext claim. The DOJ “rule”, if there actually is a rule rather than a practice, does not carry any weight in a contest with Rule 41g.
“The suit was filed by Trump’s lawyers.”
Yes, and if you read it, you’d know that it doesn’t mention A-C privilege, only executive privilege. Have you read it? If not, here’s the docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64911367/trump-v-united-states-government/
“as long as any documents remain in the FBI’s possession, the greater the risk that they will be leaked to enemies of Trump”
I doubt it. A primary reason for the search was to get the national defense info into a secure location.
“The DOJ “rule”, if there actually is a rule rather than a practice, does not carry any weight in a contest with Rule 41g.”
There’s a rule: Rule 6, and it’s as much a part of federal rules of criminal procedure as Rule 41. Trump’s filing repeatedly mentions rule 41(g), but it makes no argument for why it might apply. Nor does it say why the court can and should do more than the government is already doing. Trump’s passports were already returned, for example, and any other non-responsive documents presumably will follow.
At any rate, the DOJ has been ordered to reply, and I’ll wait til they do and the judge actually rules on the motions instead of voicing an inclination.
Trash. Garland has shown himself to be a puppet forced to do what he should have done in the first place.
There is no need to comment on the rest. The individual writing it isn’t credible and is generally ignorant of the facts.
There is legal, political and moral reasons to appoint a Special Master. The most important reason is Garland’s and the FBI’s disregard to the rule of law. This AG has very little credibility and has proven to be a political partisan.
Re, re, re, re, yeah baby
😉
I’m about to give you all of my money
And all I’m askin’ in return, honey
Is to give me my propers when you get home
(Just a, just a, just a, just a) yeah, baby
(Just a, just a, just a, just a) when you get home
(Just a little bit) yeah
(Just a little bit)
Ooh, your kisses, sweeter than honey
And guess what? So is my money
All I want you to do for me, is give it to me when you get home
(Re, re, re, re) yeah, baby
(Re, re, re, re) whip it to me
(Respect, just a little bit) when you get home, now
(Just a little bit)
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Find out what it means to me
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Take care, TCB, oh
(Sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me)
A little respect
(Sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me)
Jonathan Turley:
In this and other controversies, he has demanded respect but refused to take even modest measures to justify it.
I got my popcorn ready for the indictment and criminal trial of Donald Trump. Turley will be here making lame excuses for Defendant Trump after the state and federal indictments come out, until Trump is convicted. Then Turley will continue to defend Federal Inmate #9748731 Donald J. Trump. Will Turley visit Trump in prison?
Only if conjugal visits are allowed.
The republic is being conjugated, not Turley.
“The special master could divide these documents, etc, etc.” Don’t you mean, the special master can divide whatever documents the corrupt DOJ and the corrupt FBI give him? Does anyone really believe that the DOJ and FBI, after turning over an almost completely redacted affidavit, won’t hold back incriminating documents to cover up their crimes associated with the Russiagate hoax? The only reason more Americans aren’t livid about the abuse of power by this administration is because it’s either not reported in the liberal media; is reported on the bottom of page 35; or is so watered down as to appear benign. I have realized over the last two years that the major reason liberals can’t debate facts is that they simply don’t have them. Their news sources deliberately keep them in the dark so as not to deviate from the Democratic party narrative. This leaves liberals few response options other than denial, distraction and hysteria.
I would agree about liberals no longer being able to debate. I used to be a liberal but apparently I’m a Nazi now. The only thing that has changed is the debate part so I guess debate has become a Nazi identifier.
Nazi’s, Nazi’s everywhere (but none in Ukraine thank goodness)
Wrong RZ! You are not a Nazi. You are a “semi-Nazi.” Get it right! LOL
“The only reason more Americans aren’t livid about the abuse of power by this administration is because….Democrats, Communists, Progressives, Marxists. etc. approve of it. FIFY.
This ain’t your grandfather’s Democrat Party. That party cared (or at least professed to care) about the principles of protecting civil liberties against abusive government power. Those days are long past. Now they approve of abusive government power provided it’s used against Republicans.
I used to say Democrats were good on about 30% of issues (mostly civil liberty); Republicans were good on about 30% of issues (mostly economic liberty); and both parties sucked on the other 40% (mostly foreign policy).
Now Democrats are terrible on civil liberty, Republicans are far less committed to economic liberty than they used to be, but both parties remain atrociously horrible on foreign policy.
It’s now the National Socialist Democrat Party. They line up well with the Third Reich.
I’d say you called it right. I’m right there with you.
My CNN addicted brother-n-law says “if you (Trump) are innocent, then you don’t need to fear the gov going thru your documents”. He sang a different song with Hillary… “She said the emails were personal, the gov has no business going thru those emails”
When we see the power that the government displays over Trump, a rich man with immense public and private resources, most of us are frightened.
Imagine what they can do to us, unhampered by publicity or a legion of lawyers.
“frightened”? NO!
The National Socialist Democrat Party is leading us to a breaking point. The Marxists history of the Twentieth Century is clear.
” We the People ” know the remedy for tyrannical government. It’s the 2nd Amendment.
According to the ATF 700 million guns in the hands of citizens.
The words of Patrick Henry still ring. “Give me liberty or give me death!”
“frightened”? LOL. I have no fear that someone will search my home for national defense information or evidence of obstruction.
Your warrant would list drug paraphernalia.
Nope. I’ve never used illegal drugs or owned any drug paraphernalia.
Other than the occasional jaywalking and driving with the rest of the traffic a bit above the speed limit, I’m a very law abiding person.
That won’t matter in the Fourth Reich.
Show me the man I’ll show you the crime.
I’ve never been indicted for any crime. Apparently they haven’t figured one out for me.
you’re being intentional obtuse. Like impeachment 1, Trumps phone call was well within his power. Like General Flynn, not even the FBI doing the off the books interview believed Flynn lied, but the punishment is the investigation, no crime required.
So yes the Fed can toss your house using a warrant filled with lies. Your 4th amendment rights stripped. But no charges are ever filed, so no ability to challenge the warrant, and prove govt corruption
You don’t quote any “lies” in the Trump warrant.
Anonymous
Then you have a limited imagination.
Try EPA violations, antitrust, union busting. The possibilities are endless.
It is not all about Trump.
I have no fear that anyone will search my home for any of those reasons either.
If a company has violated the EPA or antitrust laws, I hope the DOJ fines them and gets them to clean up their act.
The Rule of Law the National Socialist Democrat Party infringes on will be used against you fool.
LOL!
Your words are true. Prosecutors at every level have resources that very few of us could could match. Their focus, too often, seems to be on arrest and conviction. Your innocence on guilt doesn’t matter.
There are ways to level the playing field. Start by making prosecutorial and police misconduct a felony. The penalty should be no less than the penalty received by the victim. Next;. The prosecutors office should be required to reimburse the defendants Expenses for every case they fail to get a conviction In. This would give prosecutors “skin in the game” and a reason to be very careful about when and when Not to prosecute.
Yep! Just wait until all of those new IRS agents are on the government payroll! Remember Lois Lerner?
Wikipedia: “In May 2014, Lerner was declared in contempt of Congress in connection with her invocation of her Fifth Amendment not to testify on the matter before a congressional committee… the Justice Department would not pursue criminal contempt charges against Lerner.”
Wikipedia: “The House Oversight Committee… issued a subpoena for all of Lerner’s email messages during the time in question. Months later, the IRS informed Congress that they did not have all of her email messages, due to her hard drive crashing, causing them to be irretrievably lost, that the IRS had taken steps to recover the email messages, but that it was impossible… in October 2015, the DOJ announced it was closing the investigation and would not seek criminal charges.
Thanks to D.C. Democrats, Loose Lois is still at large.
Lois is probably enjoying a generous government pension as well.