Last night, Department of Justice filed in opposition to the appointment of a Special Master in Florida. It used the filing to add new facts and allegations to the public record, including the statement that “obstructive conduct occurred” at Mar-a-Lago by concealing or moving documents. The Department makes many of the same claims that it used to opposed the release of a redacted affidavit, claims shown to have been misleading and exaggerated after the magistrate ordered the release. Notably, this filing contained details that were likely redacted in the affidavit but just released on the public record.
In the most direct challenge to the former President’s public claims, the Justice Department claimed that he and his staff had failed to turn over classified material and that the Department had no choice but to search areas outside of the storage room. Indeed, it says that it found three classified documents in Trump’s desk without indicating the level of classification or subject matter.
It also said that the Trump staff barred the FBI from looking at documents in the storage room after turning over classified information to them.
“As the former President’s filing indicates, the FBI agents and DOJ attorney were permitted to visit the storage room. See D.E. 1 at 5-6. Critically, however, the former President’s counsel explicitly prohibited government personnel from opening or looking inside any of the boxes that remained in the storage room, giving no opportunity for the government to confirm that no documents with classification markings remained.”
The filing also adds new disclosures on past claims of declassification by Trump. It states that “[w]hen producing the Fifteen Boxes, the former President never asserted executive privilege over any of the documents nor claimed that any of the documents in the boxes containing classification markings had been declassified.” That was in January 2022. It then alleges that, in the June 3, 2022 meeting, “neither counsel nor the custodian asserted that the former President had declassified the documents or asserted any claim of executive privilege.” It is not clear if or when the Trump team made the declassification claim.
The filing also includes this notable allegation:
“The government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation.”
The Justice Department told the court that it was vindicated in its suspicions and that
“the FBI, in a matter of hours, recovered twice as many documents with classification markings as the ‘diligent search’ that the former President’s counsel and other representatives had weeks to perform calls into serious question the representations made in the June 3 certification and casts doubt on the extent of cooperation in this matter.”
It is not clear from the filing if the FBI has evidence of intentional acts of concealment as opposed to negligence in keeping track of such material. However, stating that the FBI believes that “obstructive conduct occurred” is very serious, particularly if the FBI also believes that this conduct was knowingly or intentional obstructive.
The main point of the filing was to address the court’s indication that it wanted a special master appointment. I have supported such an appointment, even at this late date. 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. It would still have considerable value in the case.
The special master could divide these documents into groups of 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.
Notably, this filing includes the picture which is being widely distributed. It can, however, leave an obviously misleading impression.
The picture could be seen by many that secret documents were strewn over the floor when this appears the method used by the FBI to isolate classified documents. However, putting that initial concern aside, there is a question as to the purpose of the attachment. It seems entirely superfluous in releasing this one picture. The picture is Attachment F and the textual reference on page 13 simply says
“Certain of the documents had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status. See, e.g., Attachment F (redacted FBI photograph of certain documents and classified cover sheets recovered from a container in the “45 office”).”
It is curious that the DOJ would release this particular picture which suggests classified material laying around on the floor. The point is to state a fact that hardly needs an optical confirmation: the possession of documents with classified cover sheets. Indeed, the top of roughly half of the documents are redacted in the photos. The government could simply affirmatively state the fact of the covered pages and would not likely be challenged on that point without the inclusion of this one photo.
For critics, the photo may appear another effort (with prior leaks) to help frame the public optics and discussion. Clearly the court did not need the visual aid of a picture of documents with covers. It seems clearly intended for public consumption.
It is possible that the FBI was showing that these files with intermixed in that box with the framed Time covers. If so, that is an appropriate combination if it is being used not to show the covers as cited in the text but the commingling of documents raised in other parts of the filing. We simply do not know.
The arguments raised by the Justice Department are not just familiar but transparently weak. The government argues that Trump lacks standing because the records belong to the United States, not him. However, that is the point. The court is trying to determine who has a right to these documents. The Justice Department itself recognizes that it may have gathered some attorney-client privileged documents in this ridiculously broad search. 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.
Moreover, the court itself has ample authority to appoint a special master to help sort through such material.
The government and its allies, in my view, misconstrue the impact of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which provides
” A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return. The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized. The court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion. If it grants the motion, the court must return the property to the movant, but may impose reasonable conditions to protect access to the property and its use in later proceedings.”
However, the Special Master is being used by the Court to determine the status, classification, and categorization of the documents. The Court has the inherent authority to seek such assistance in an independent review of material. Special masters are fairly common helping courts establish the record for ruling on the merits of motions. It may turn out that most or all of this material is properly held by the government, but a Special Master can help establish the record for that decision, including the status of material acknowledged as potential attorney-client material.
The Justice Department also makes the same type of arguments used to oppose the release of a single line of the affidavit in redacted form. It claims that both its investigation and national security would be harmed. That is even less compelling here. A special master would be reviewing documents in a secure facility and would presumably have a clearance. Many of us who have handled national security cases have been cleared for TS/SCI material.
Notably, however, the Justice Department states in a footnote that “the government is prepared, given the extraordinary circumstances, to unseal the more detailed receipt and provide it immediately to plaintiff.” That sounds like (as with the redacted affidavit) that they clearly can release more information, particularly to avoid a Special Master appointment.
The use of such arguments after the release of the redacted affidavit only undermines the arguments further. The Justice Department insisted that the court should not release a single line of the affidavit and that any substantive disclosure would unleash a parade of horribles, from damaging national security to sacrificing witnesses.
For those of us who have litigated cases against the Justice Department, it was an all-too-familiar claim by a department notorious for over-classification and over-redaction arguments. For a week, media pundits mouthed the same exaggerated claims and challenged those of us who argued that it was clearly possible to release a redacted affidavit; liberals suddenly shuddered at the thought of doubting the Justice Department. Then the government produced a redacted version that caused no such harms while confirming important facts in the case.
Notably, some of the details in this filing on meetings before the August raid may have been part of the affidavit but redacted.
The Department also claims that it does not need to return personal material to the former president because the evidence of “commingling personal effects with documents bearing classification markings is relevant evidence of the statutory offenses under investigation.” That is again transparency weak. The government has recorded or documented such intermingling and make a record for any trial without refusing to return material that is neither classified nor otherwise subject to government confiscation or removal.
The Department also makes other incomplete or dubious arguments. For example, it asserts that no executive privilege claim can be made by a former president: “The former President cites no case—and the government is aware of none—in which executive privilege has been successfully invoked to prohibit the sharing of documents within the Executive Branch.” That is because this issue has not been fully litigated. It has been a long debate over the ability of former presidents to claim privilege. Indeed, under the Presidential Records Act, such assertions are honored over documents in its possession.
What is clear from this filing is that Merrick Garland will not change his refusal to seek modest steps to assure the public that this investigation is neither pretextual nor political. Instead, he is “all in” on these sweeping and untenable claims of the need for absolute control and secrecy. What is missing is real leadership to address the deep concerns of millions of Americans over the past records of the Department and its current investigation. Instead, Garland has required courts to force the release of a redacted affidavit and the possible appointment of a special master.
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.
The court should reject the arguments against the appointment of a special master and allow for an independent review of these documents.
Here is the filing: doj-response-to-trump-special-master
This column was edited to add the language from Rule 41 and the basis for such motions.
Is there anything indicating any nefarious purpose behind taking and keeping all this “classified” material? Or is it just Trump’s incompetence at things like this, which has been well known all along?
In other words, is there any substance here or is this just all technical violations of rules regarding the handling of classified material?
This is such a swampy thing. The decision to prosecute is everything. A DC grand jury will certainly indict. A DC petit jury will certainly convict. 99.9% of the population in and around DC hates Trump.
If they bring the charges in FL that could make things interesting.
But it’s still a fateful step. We should never prosecute former office holders over technical “crimes”. There will be no end to such prosecutions once we start down that road. Or the end will be the unraveling of the Republic.
>But it’s still a fateful step. We should never prosecute former office holders over technical “crimes”.<
They've been doing this since the day he entered office. This is season 9 of "Get Trump." And every season ends the same way: he gets away.
JMRJ wrote, “A DC petit jury will certainly convict. 99.9% of the population in and around DC hates Trump.”
On that particular point…
I don’t think it’s possible for Donald Trump to get a genuine fair trial in any court in the United States of America because there is absolutely no place in the USA where the long-reaching tentacles of anti-Trump propaganda hasn’t infected a pure bias of some kind against Donald Trump.
I’ll use myself as an example; I don’t like Donald Trump one bit in fact I’ve never liked him and I think he’s a rhetorical loose cannon and a narcissist, I consider myself to be a true advocate for innocent until proven guilty, I am dead set against the notion that someone is guilty until proven innocent, I’m driven by facts not innuendo, etc, etc. All that said I truly don’t know if my personal bias against Donald Trump, the person, would somehow be used as an overriding bias to convince me of his guilt if I sat on a jury.
The United States is full of anti-Trump people that will believe anything that is put in front of them if it supports their anti-Trump bias. Also; the United States if full of pro-Trump people that will categorically reject any accusation leveled against Donald Trump. I don’t consider myself to be part of either of those extreme camps and still I’m not sure that I could be completely “impartial”.
The Mar-a-Lago FBI raid and the subsequent verifiable intentional lies, yes lies, from the DOJ is pure political and cultural poison and will drive a massive wedge between the extreme political factions in our country that may never be healed or even healable. If one could pick a single action to define all that is to follow, this raid action would be it.
With how deeply divided the United States is right now, convicting Donald Trump in a court of law for anything would likely be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.
A large fraction of the country is tuned out, so you shouldn’t assume that all prospective jurors are tainted.
And I believe that if there’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed crimes, it does as much harm to the country to refuse to charge him as you expect would be done by charging him.
Anonymous wrote, “A large fraction of the country is tuned out, so you shouldn’t assume that all prospective jurors are tainted.”
With the massive media campaign constantly spewing toxic anti-Trump propaganda in the faces of the public for over six years, it’s illogical to assume that there are any untainted jurors out there.
I stand by my statement, “there is absolutely no place in the USA where the long-reaching tentacles of anti-Trump propaganda hasn’t infected a pure bias of some kind against Donald Trump.”
No Anonymous, I don’t think your claim is logically supportable.
Sorry, but the fact that some media “spew[] toxic anti-Trump propaganda” does not imply that everyone hears it. As a simple counter example, consider the people who exclusively get their news from places like Fox, OANN, and Alex Jones. And there are people who simply do not listen to the news. That you fail to consider them does not make them non-existent.
Anonymous wrote, “Sorry, but the fact that some media “spew[] toxic anti-Trump propaganda” does not imply that everyone hears it.”
That’s NOT what I wrote. I wrote, “With the massive media campaign constantly spewing toxic anti-Trump propaganda in the faces of the public for over six years, it’s illogical to assume that there are any untainted jurors out there.”
There has been over six years of constant in-your-face toxic anti-Trump propaganda across the main stream media complex and you think there are people that haven’t seen or heard any of that propaganda in any way shape or form? You’re welcome to your opinions but that’s delusional thinking.
Delusional: characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument.
Steve,
How do you explain tens of millions of Trump supporters if everyone hears “in-your-face toxic anti-Trump propaganda” and no one is capable of ignoring/disbelieving it?
Anonymous, be careful. Witherspoon tends to trap himself into circular arguments when he can’t admit certain possibilities. It turns into a vicious circle of denial and ends up with trolling accusations.
Anonymous wrote, “How do you explain tens of millions of Trump supporters”
What do you mean, how do I explain them?
Trump supporters are human beings just like Trump haters and they are affected either positively or negatively by the six years of constant in-your-face toxic anti-Trump propaganda driving zealots into ideological bubbles.
Reread what I wrote that started this chat. The main point I was raising was about the ability to be completely impartial, as in treating all rivals or disputants equally; fair and just. Personally I don’t think a Trump supporter will be any more “fair” than a Trump hater, I’m neither one of those and I’m not so sure that I could be impartial, that a real problem for the justice system.
Ask yourself these questions…
1) Do you think that filling a jury with Trump supporters would indicate that it’s going to be a “fair” trial? This is exactly what Trump supporters would want.
2) Do you think that filling a jury with Trump haters would indicate that it’s going to be a “fair” trial? This is exactly what Trump haters would want.
3) What is the correct percentage of Trump supporters vs Trump haters that should be on a jury in judgement of Trump? Also; who get’s to determine that percentage?
4) Under normal circumstances; is it only considered to be a “fair” trial if the defendant is found not-guilty?
5) Under normal circumstances; is it possible to have a “fair” trial even if the defendant is found guilty?
NOTE: What’s happened in the USA in the last 6+ years in regards to constant anti-Trump propaganda is so far from anything considered “normal” that labeling it unprecedented and absolutely absurd would be much more correct.
6) Considering the unprecedented absurdity of the anti-Trump propaganda that’s infected the population over the last 6+ years, is it reasonable to think it’s not possible to get an “impartial” jury where Donald Trump is concerned?
Think a little bit more about “impartial” and less about ideological leanings and I think you’ll better understand where I’m coming from.
Considering the totality of what I just wrote, maybe my wording of the sentence that started this should have been something more in line with this…
If you think there are people that have been so isolated from our society in the last 6+ years that they haven’t heard or been affected by any anti-Trump propaganda, then please direct me to the address of the rocks that these people live under.
I’ve said what I came to say, I’m done.
The fact that you keep harping about anti-Trump propaganda but don’t also harp about pro-Trump propaganda tells us about your own bias.
Unlike you, I think it’s possible for someone to be a Trump supporter OR a Trump opponent and ALSO be committed to impartially considering all of the evidence as well as the arguments on both sides. The key issue is: are you someone who is willing to change their mind in response to evidence. If not, they don’t belong on the jury, regardless of whether the person is a Trump supporter or a Trump opponent or neither, but if the answer is yes, then they can be a juror, again regardless of whether the person is a Trump supporter or a Trump opponent or neither. The issue is not some arbitrarily correct # of Trump supporters and opponents on the jury. The issue is to get a jury where every single juror is committed to listening to all of the evidence and all of the arguments with an open mind.
LOL. No one cares. To classify it as thinking or even commentary is disrespectful.
You’re kind of missing the point. Everyone who has ever handled classified material has likely run afoul of some criminal rule about how classified material should be handled. You could probably prove everyone with a security clearance guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s why such “crimes” are not prosecuted. There has to be some other nefarious thing in play. Like actual espionage.
These documents were not supposed to be in Trump’s possession post-presidency in the first place. He was asked to return all of them. He did not. He was subpoenaed for the remainder. He still did not return them all. There’s video evidence of some of them being removed from the storage room that was supposed to be properly secured. Trump’s lawyers wouldn’t let the DOJ look inside the boxes of material in June. … It’s hard to believe that this is simple “incompetence,” because he could have invited the DOJ to search the premises long ago if he’d wanted to make sure that all of the government records were promptly returned to the government.
As for “We should never prosecute former office holders over technical “crimes”,” AFAIC, if someone lower would be prosecuted for it, then Trump should be prosecuted for it. We’re talking about the mishandling and possible obstruction re: highly classified documents in a club where there are foreign nationals walking around.
“These documents were not supposed to be in Trump’s possession post-presidency in the first place.”
Do you know the documents first hand? No So how can you draw that conclusion? You can’t but logic escapes you.
The documents were the Presidents and in his home. Attorney client privilege documents were taken. That makes it a political action. There was nothing known that had to be removed. If they had to be removed because of national security interests, they would have been removed by the former President. He would have given them to the appropriate people.
Trump dealt in good faith. The DOJ and FBI did not. The authorities were at MAL before and were told they would be assisted in any way possible. The FBI did a raid with a warrant that was not justified and violated the 4th Amendment.
“It’s hard to believe that this is simple “incompetence,” because he could have invited the DOJ to search the premises long ago “
Trump did exactly that. Instead, the FBI violated his 4th Amendment protections. They violated his rights and the rights of others in the past. Remember FISA? How can we trust anyone who writes such crap as anonymous.
“ But it’s still a fateful step. We should never prosecute former office holders over technical “crimes”.
So Hillary shouldn’t have been investigated or charged?
If we don’t prosecute what’s the point of having a law in the first place. Because they are former office holders they shouldn’t be held accountable for breaking the law?
No, Hillary shouldn’t have been prosecuted either. And she wasn’t.
Violating the espionage act was not Clinton’s only crime.
Nor was her violation of the espionage act merely a technical crime.
It was reckless and likely put americans at risk.
She did not email people information she though should not be classifed.
She emailed people information that she KNEW was classified and KNEW why, in sydney blumenthal’s case – so that he could make money from it.
Nor did was this about paper documents in boxes in locked rooms.
It was about electronic documents available to anyone who could hack her server – and atleast one hostile foreign power did.
And we have not discussed making false claims of criminal conduct to the FBI.
Clinton was behind – paid for, directed and was updated regularly on the Steele Dossier and the Alpha Bank scam.
These were hoaxes and she knew that because she directed their creation. And they were pushed to the FBI at her direction.
The crime of stealing the NARA documents happened in DC. This is NOT a “technical crime”–Cipollone told Trump that the documents were the property of the NARA. Trump is quoted as saying “they’re not theirs–they’re mine”. He personally sorted through papers and pulled out a few TS/SCI documents that were voluntarily returned, but kept more than he returned His lawyer filed a false Affidavit swearing that ALL had been returned, but boxes were repacked and moved around. Trump’s staff refused to allow the NARA to examine other boxes. We, the American People, have no idea who all may have seen, copied or taken some TS/SCI documents.Then, in response to a search warrant, it was discovered that there were NARA documents stashed all over the place in unsecured locations, including Trump’s desk. Any cleaning lady could have gotten into them.
Trump is, has always been, and always will be a grifter and liar. Richard Nixon looks like a choir boy by comparison. Watergate seems quaint by comparison. Garland MUST prosecute him, not just because he’s a thief and liar, but because he violated his oath to the Constitution. If anything, a President must be held to a higher standard when it comes to matters such as national security. There’s no excuse for Trump’s behavior, and no amount of attacks against the DOJ and FBI by paid advocates like Turley is going to change the fact that Trump has put our national security at risk for no good reason whatsoever.
It’s all fake. This was already settled for slick willie, and it was declared the potus has absolute power in declassification, so slick willie and all the rest of the potii are innocent in this matter, period.
Now of course we have the criminal gangs games, as we both see, that are widespread and in everyone’s faces now.
None of them will ever have a shred of credibility again. They now amount to nothing in terms of believability, credibility, honor, integrity, fairness, justifications, and on and on. They did it to themselves, in collusion with each other and guilty of every crime and then some they have accused Trump and all the other non democrats of.
I doubt they realize how pathetic they have become in the eyes of every citizen. That is also to their shame.
The one thing, well, there were other things that could of been done by Merrick as the professor pointed out before. But the appointment of a special master to review the documents would of been something the public would of seen as transparent, and on the up and up.
Now with this filing, transparency is lost. Along with the public’s faith and confidence.
What’s so disturbing is that Garland & Co. can pull off this obvious abuse of power “in broad daylight.” The media screams about “communist” China on a daily basis, but is missing the fascist rot inside the Democratic party. Every aspect of its agenda is totalitarian, from school indoctrination to “controlled anarchy” in the streets to censorship of all opposing voices. This attack on Trump is a gross display of power abuse, but while Biden natters on about “semi-fascist Republicans” and his collaborators at MSNBC regurgitate his lies, the DC swamp is turning the entire country into a mirror image of itself.
“ It is curious that the DOJ would release this particular picture which suggests classified material laying around on the floor. The point is to state a fact that hardly needs an optical confirmation: the possession of documents with classified cover sheets. Indeed, the top of roughly half of the documents are redacted in photo. The government could simply affirmatively state the fact of the covered pages and would not likely be challenged on that point without the inclusion of this one photo. For critics, the photo may appear another effort (with prior leaks) to help frame the public optics and discussion.”
What Turley neglects to understand is that simply stating things with regard to Trump is not enough since his allies and supporters are expected to dismiss the statements as BS. So adding the photo to back it up makes it harder for Trump to lie about it when he goes on his near daily rants about the “raid”.
What is strange is that Turley calls these “leaks”, but they are only rebuttals to trumps continued assertions that are obviously in need to contradict by this evidence. The FBI is essentially shutting down Trump’s lying in real time before it gets out of hand in the public square and the conspiracy theories start to run rampant. The FBI is a counterintelligence organization and they are using that experience to counter Trump’s attempts to dominate the narrative. That would be a smart move by the FBI.
Four out of thirteen posts are by Svelaz.
Two things about lefties:
They are frequently wrong; and
They never shut up.
Sve is working overtime today. Must need some $$ to get his Mom’s basement sofa cleaned….
Nah, just paying off the sweet Ferrari I purchased with conservative rage money. 😉
Monumentcolorado,
“ Two things about lefties:
They are frequently wrong; and
They never shut up.”
So are righties. Isn’t freedom of speech wonderful?
What is wrong about my statements so far? Be specific. If you can show they need correction specify what? I’ll gladly correct it.
Svelaz
I used to read your comments a long time ago.
But as I said, you never shut up.
Life is just too short to try to parse your emotional rants.
Fortunately, you have a distinctive name and it is easy to skip your posts.
Monumentcolorado, when certain topics do pop up I do post more often than usual. That’s still no different than some other posters on the blog.
George comes to mind.
You made the statement “ They are frequently wrong; and
They never shut up.”
It was bound to be answered.
“ The main point of the filing was to address the court’s indication that it wanted a special master appointment. I have supported such an appointment, even at this late date. 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.”
Turley keeps focusing on “failures” of Garland, but is glaringly avoiding the clear failures of the Trump team. The failure to fine timely motions, the failure to file coherent and procedurally correct motions, failure to claim executive privilege, it’s truly astounding that Turley is being so willfully blind to such abysmal failures from the Trump team.
The FBI did it’s homework when it knew it was going to deal with Trump’s BS and it’s been so successful in tempering his wild accusations and ever changing excuses. The FBI has evidence to contradict any excuses Trump can come up with and so far they are doing a good job. Turley would be hard pressed not to admit that Trump’s excuses are not working so he focuses instead on the DOJ and muddying the water by pointing out past problems while ignoring the fact that they are irrelevant to this investigation.
Jonathan Turley: what would we do without you? The DOJ does not seem interested in what is just or true, but what works.
The justice department lost their credibility in 2017 so I assume they lie whenever they speak. It makes it easier to see what’s really going on.
The Justice Dept. says “Trust Us”. Multiple people “retired” or fired after the Russia Collusion spectacle and an Assistant Special Agent in Charge in the DC office is suddenly “retired” and walked out of the building last week for bias in dealing with Hunter Biden Laptop and slow walking or stopping the investigation. Falsification of documents submitted to the court in Russia Collusion spectacle. How do we know that these submissions from the Justice Dept are not also falsified. I think a question would be “If you were you lying then and how do we know that you are not lying now”. Is not the best way to destroy testimony by showing the entity previously lied. And now “Trust Us”. Hmmm, thats a bit of a stretch. Maybe like “When Hell Freezes Over”
“ The filing also adds new disclosures on past claims of declassification by Trump. It states that “[w]hen producing the Fifteen Boxes, the former President never asserted executive privilege over any of the documents nor claimed that any of the documents in the boxes containing classification markings had been declassified.” That was in January 2022. It then alleges that, in the June 3, 2022 meeting, “neither counsel nor the custodian asserted that the former President had declassified the documents or asserted any claim of executive privilege.” It is not clear if or when the Trump team made the declassification claim.”
Oh it is clear when the trump team made the declassification claim. It was AFTER the search warrant was executed and AFTER Trump was claiming the FBI planted those documents. Only AFTER the FBI released the warrant and receipt that Trump was demanding that the trump team started claiming the declassification excuses.
Turley is being deliberately disingenuous or willfully naive. Clearly trump lied and obstructed. Turley just can’t bring himself to say it out loud because he will face the ire of Trump supporters. It’s kind of ironic because on one of his previous columns talking about conservative students “self censoring” because they were afraid of the backlash or criticism. Now Turley is essentially “self censoring” on stating the obvious because he may be wary of the backlash and criticism from rabid Trump supporters.
+100 Svelaz
My suspicion is that Garland won’t do anything to help or speed the process because he wants to do everything he can to leave a cloud over any possible Trump Presidential campaign. This is a blatant attempt to affect the mid-terms and to try to taint any possibility of a Trump run. It make no difference if there is a real basis or not. Obstruct, taint, rinse, repeat.
Trump didn’t nominate Garland for the Supreme Court, now we know why.
Biden’s DOJ is waging a marketing strategy that is flailing, just like his presidency. He should step down for the good of the nation and call new elections across the board.
Direction of Country
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html
Poll Date
Right Direction
Wrong Direction
Rasmussen Reports
29
64
Economist/YouGov
25
65
Politico/Morning Consult
30
70
Reuters/Ipsos
20
70
NBC News
21
74
Monmouth
61
81
Darren, I use HTML coding as per:
https://www.w3schools.com/TAgs/tag_col.asp
but it is not always accepted by WordPress.
However WordPress refers users to various W3 HTML validators
https://codex.wordpress.org/Validating_a_Website#HTML_-_Validation
though perhaps it does not accept W3schools? I thought W3schools was reliable
What is the formatting WordPress accepts for HTML tags? This is not the first time my tags have been ignored by WordPress.
Thanks
Estovir,
My understanding of WordPress is that the settings to allow/disallow specific HTML tags in comments is set in two arrays contained in the theme’s functions.php file. This seems to take precedent over otherwise allowable standardized HTML that a commenter writes. I don’t have access to this php file to determine what it is looking for but I suspect it is very minimal in what HTML is allowed. I’ll run through a few and we’ll see what it accepts:
~+~
Unformatted
Bold-faced <B>
Italics <I>
Emphasis <em>
Underline <U>
Strikeout<strike>Superscript<sup>
Subscript<sub>
<hr>
<p>
<H1>
<H2>
<H3>
Font tag with Green color
just a start, it might offer some suggestions but what is allowed is basically hardcoded into the script for the wordpress site’s theme.
odd. I posted a comment 2 days ago
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/08/29/rorschach-redactions-what-did-not-happen-with-the-release-of-the-mar-a-lago-affidavit/comment-page-1/#comment-2217861
using what I thought was basic HTML unordered lists coding
https://www.w3schools.com/html//html_lists_unordered.asp
WordPress didnt care for the coding.
I’ll just follow your examples and refrain from using the W3Schools resource or any spiffy formatting.
Thank you
As an aside, WordPress also accepts block quotes using the following HTML coding. I have used it on here in the past
HTML Quotation and Citation Elements
https://www.w3schools.com/html/html_quotation_elements.asp
/GeekTalkOff
Darren,
Did you use the Admin comment portal to enter all of those HTML tags or were did you enter it from the reply link at the bottom of Estovir’s comment on the HTML blog page?
Steve
I thought I had tried all of these tags before but here’s a new HTML test.
This sentence is a quick test
ofusing the HTML tags that Darren listed.Red Text
Unformatted
Bold-faced
Italics
Emphasis
Underline
StrikeoutSuperscript
Subscript
Centered
Centered
Centered
Centered
HTML Test Complete
Underline
The HTML tags that failed were Underline, Superscript, Subscript, H1, H2, H3, Center, Color.
The FBI is a
https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/centaur-wp/designweek/prod/content/uploads/2013/10/AndrewBaker_Big-Box-of-Nonsense.jpg
“Case in point: the FBI.
The government’s henchmen have become the embodiment of how power, once acquired, can be so easily corrupted and abused. Indeed, far from being tough on crime, FBI agents are also among the nation’s most notorious lawbreakers.
Whether the FBI is planting undercover agents in churches, synagogues and mosques; issuing fake emergency letters to gain access to Americans’ phone records; using intimidation tactics to silence Americans who are critical of the government, or persuading impressionable individuals to plot acts of terror and then entrapping them, the overall impression of the nation’s secret police force is that of a well-dressed thug, flexing its muscles and doing the boss’ dirty work.”
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_american_kleptocracy_a_government_of_liars_thieves_and_lawbreakers
“ It is not clear from the filing if the FBI has evidence of intentional acts of concealment as opposed to negligence in keeping track of such material.”
The FBI got footage of video surveillance in the storage room. That’s how they know and that’s why the judge signed the warrant. It’s not clear to Turley because he doesn’t have access to the evidence that the FBI had.
Turley seems to be making a losing argument here. The DOJ seems to have much more evidence than it is publicly known. Turley shouldn’t be making assumptions trying to make excuses for Trump. What is interesting is why Turley isn’t talking about WHY Trump was fighting to keep documents that clearly did not belong to him. That is theft by definition.
Turley is protecting his job at FOX. There is no other explanation.
When the history is written, Merrick Garland will go down as a weak AG who was out of his element, over his head, in that position.
“ In the most direct challenge to the former President’s public claims, the Justice Department claimed that he and his staff had failed to turn over classified material and that the Department had no choice but to search areas outside of the storage room.”
Well it’s true. If Trump was “cooperating” as he claimed there wouldn’t be a need for a subpoena or a search warrant. Turley leaves out his lawyer’s affidavit stating they “diligently looked for” classified documents and claimed they found none. The FBI obviously found more meaning Trump was lying and the DOJ had no reason to trust anything he said. That’s why the warrant was so broad. Because Trump’s continued obstruction and lying.
“ Last night, Department of Justice Tuesday filed in opposition to the appointment of a Special Master in Florida.”
Huh? “Department of Justice Tuesda”? It seems Turley’s proof readers were out to lunch.
“Look at the bones!” (credit: Monty Python)
DOJ is less concerned about justice and more concerned with winning.
Given the huge advantage that the government already has, the importance of this case, and the distrust of so many Americans, I would expect Garland to be scrupulous.
But he continues to reinforce the fact that there are two standards of justice in the U.S.
DOJ will win the battle.
But at what cost?
What is clear that for some Trump is above the laws and that lying in Trump’s defense is not a crime or a sin but what must be done by a loyal cult member.
Trump wasn’t cooperating. His lawyers were lying. Professor, it’s time to walk away from Trump.
+100