Justice Department Opposes Any Special Master and Alleges That “Obstructive Conduct Occurred” at Mar-a-Lago

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.

428 thoughts on “Justice Department Opposes Any Special Master and Alleges That “Obstructive Conduct Occurred” at Mar-a-Lago”

  1. FWIW, there was a hearing today in Judge Cannon’s court re: whether she’d grant Trump’s request for a Special Master. Despite having said earlier that she was inclined to agree to Trump’s request, she didn’t rule this afternoon; instead she said she’d post a written order later. She didn’t give any indication of her timeline for doing so. Cannon also said she would defer ruling on whether to unseal the more detailed inventory of seized property that Trump requested and that was subsequently filed by the DOJ under seal.

  2. Not to jump on the conspiracy wagon but the DOJ has not really has a good record of non bias behavior. What is it that the government does not want anybody to see? They have already demonstrated that the FBI / Exec and CIA have all been in the same bed.

    JD Rucker
    Sep 1, 2022

    What was the FBI after? It seems based on the way the raid on Mar-a-Lago went down that they weren’t just trying to pin a general charge on a president taking classified documents, especially considering it was within his rights to do so as the ultimate arbiter of what is classified and what is not. Were Deep Staters who command the FBI after something specific?
    During Ghislaine Maxwell’s first interview after being arrested and put in solitary confinement awaiting trial, she made some very peculiar statements. They were so off-the-wall that they were certain to be included in any post-interview write-ups. Here’s what she said:
    ‘Mysterious’ events have led her to create an imaginary cellmate, despite the fact she has been in solitary confinement from the start, with a light being shone into her cell every 15 minutes to ensure she has not self-harmed.
    ‘Strange things happen. The toilet flushes, the shower turns on when no one is nearby. When it happens, it alarms the guards so I created a ‘cellmate’ called A-17 so when something strange happens I blame it on A-17.’
    Who would call an imaginary cellmate “A-17”? Some at the time speculated that the placement of the odd phrase was intended to send a message to the outside world, perhaps the powers-that-be who she wanted to alert. The message could have been that she is aware of what’s in “A-17” and that’s why they need to keep her alive.
    For months, it’s been a mystery what the term means. But after a list of contents taken from Mar-a-Lago by the FBI was released, there it was. Item 12 was “Box labeled A-17.”

    Is it possible that among the documents taken by Donald Trump when leaving the White House was some or all of the dirt Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell collected over the decades? We know with a high level of confidence that Epstein had ties with the CIA and Maxwell had ties to Mossad. Some have assumed they were working for the intelligence agencies to collect the dirt. It makes sense.
    It also makes sense that if they did, it would be something Trump would want to take with him.
    During today’s episode of The JD Rucker Show (the isolated segment on A-17 and Maxwell is here), the comments that I read afterwards for the segment regarding Ghislaine Maxwell reminded me that some Trump supporters are unwilling to accept the possibility that Donald Trump can do anything wrong, ever. They lambasted me for insinuating that Trump had access to the Epstein-Maxwell client list and didn’t share it with the world.
    Let’s get real. As a supporter of Donald Trump, I appreciate his policies, style, and strength of leadership. But I’m not under any illusion that he is a squeaky clean righteous warrior who would never use curse words and who reads his Bible every night. The Epstein-Maxwell list in the hands of powerful men means they have power over other powerful men. I would see someone like Trump keeping the existence of the list under wraps, justifying it by knowing he could do more with control over powerful men than by exposing them for the sake of public lambasting since few if any of them would ever be held accountable in a court of law.
    Imagine if Trump had dirt on Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, and any of the other infamous members of Jeffrey Epstein’s island getaway club. Would he or most people reveal it to destroy them or use the dirt to control them?
    To be clear, I think the chances of this theory being accurate is probably between 5%-10%. It’s very unlikely, but it’s interesting enough to take note and to speculate about if it is, indeed, what the FBI was after all along. The one circumstantial piece of evidence that makes me believe it could be true is the fact the raid made no sense based on what we’ve been told. If they simply wanted to bust him with documents that he wasn’t supposed to have, they could have easily just isolated the warrant to the storage room where they knew the documents were kept. The fact that they stuck their necks out so far in light of all the negative attention they knew they’d get tells me they were looking for something very specific, and this could be it.
    Let’s also consider what sort of documents Trump or any president would take with them after they left office. They would take documents they could use, so anything that was truly national-security-related would almost certainly never be taken. Knowing Trump had intentions of returning to the White House, it seems plausible that he would take documents to help him that included dirt on Democrats, the Deep State, and powerful people. If the White House had some or all of Epstein’s and Maxwell’s dirt, that seems to be one of the things that Trump would want to take as a very useful souvenir.
    It’s all speculation, but nothing that we know now disproves it. Therefore, it’s possible, and if we’ve learned anything over the last couple of years it’s that crazy things that are possible have suddenly become likely.

  3. The Importance of Political Narrative as Midterms Looming

    About the time you wrote this column, Mary Peltola (D-AL) flipped at-large seat after special election. Three GOP candidates [Palin (27%), Begich (19%), and Sweeney (6%)] accumulated 52% votes, As Gross (I), 13%, dropped out and Peltola, 10%., the ballot consists of Palin, Begich & Peltola. The latter won 1st round (of special election) with 40% of votes, Palin, 31%, and Begich, 28%, combined 59%. Palin lost, because 50% of voters who backed Begich as their 1st choice, didn’t opt for Palin as their 2nd (29% voted for Peltola). Mainstream’s media narrative: Democrat Mary Peltola is set to make history as the first Alaska Native in Congress — while thwarting the attempted political comeback of former Gov. Sarah Palin — by winning a special House election.

    Two weeks after Mar-a-Lago raid, # 45 representatives filed a motion to apply a “Special Master”. I doubt that many of the electorate have heard about this authority who assists the court. However, those who are aware of the criminal investigation, might remember “widely distributed picture” with many documents, one of them with a thick red frame and the line SECRET/SCI in center. Maybe they ask themselves: “Why does the former president who leaves office 19 months ago still possesses documents that belonged the government” and not if they “leave an obviously misleading impression.”

    Did you hear about the “Anwan family”? In 1994, Pakistani Imran won a green card for himself and his family when he was 14 years of age. Three years later they emigrated into US. In 2004 he became US citizen living in Lorton, VA. At the same time he started working on Capital Hill as IT specialist for “some” House Democrats like then DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schulz. As time flies by, his brothers Jamal and Abid, his wife Hina Alvi, his sister-in-law Natalia Sova and two close friends (no background check required) also worked as IT staffers for Democrats. In 2016, they were investigate. 18 months later no evidence was found that they violated federal law with respect to the House computer system. Though he was in poor financial conditions, his lawyer was Chris Gowan who helped – among other duties – Bill Clinton fact-checking his memories. High Level for low crime?

    1. Not sure what this Anwan story has to do with anything. Republicans have always been better at creating the election narrative, but with Roe being overturned and 10-year-old girls being forced to have a baby, and with Trump mired in his own piles of S#*T because he’s a self-interested huckster, and, lastly, with conservatives’ smearing of police and FBI agents, the Republican narrative is of fascist, corrupt, entitled men trying to take rights away from young people and women (esp. suburban women!). And we don’t like it so we will vote differently this year. Save my Right to Choose. As far as Trump and his contempt for the rules of this Nation, I hope he’s charged with a misdemeanor and fined, just as General Petraeus was when he compromised classified information.

  4. “. . . this particular picture which suggests classified material laying around on the floor.”

    When you clip a quote or stage a photo, you can make a person looks as foolish as you want.

    1. The photo was not staged for use in the dispute about the special master. It was taken weeks before Trump filed for a special master.

      They did not claim or imply that Trump had these items on the floor.

      1. *The photo was not staged for use in the dispute *about the special master*.” (Emphasis added.)

        And when you dishonestly alter a person’s comment, you can make them say whatever you want them to say.

        You treat commenters as if they are your personal puppets. They say X. Then you pull their strings to make them say Y.

        1. I have no idea what you’re referring to by “dishonestly alter[ing] a person’s comment.” I never alter quotes without making that clear with square brackets (as I just did) or ellipses, and I do not alter the meaning of quotes when I do so. If you’re referring to something that isn’t a quote, that’s my comment, not anyone else’s.

          The photo was staged for use as documentation of the search. That’s routine in documenting searches.

  5. Professor Turley,

    With Trump’s latest filing, in which they now admit there was no standing order of declassification, will you acknowledge this was never a real thing?

    How could the government have expected classified documents at his home if they were magically declassified once they left DC?

    You have assessed the DOJ’s attempt to control the narrative with leaks. Perhaps addressing Trump’s public falsehoods deserves at least a brief mention.

    1. “With Trump’s latest filing, in which they now admit there was no standing order of declassification, will you acknowledge this was never a real thing?”

      If this is true, you should be able to copy the words without twisting them to make what you say correct. Too much cockiness from anonymous posters.

  6. I only have 2 problems with wealthy people. One, there’s not enough of them. 2, the ones show up at Davos Switzerland, like to show up at the WEF and discuss how they want us to live. Not how they’ll live, how they want us to live.

  7. This discussion has reached extreme length, but, for clarity’s sake, it may be helpful to summarize the DOJ’s legal arguments. Argument I asserts Trump lacks standing to bring his motion because he has no ownership claim to the documents as there they are “likely Presidential records”.
    Argument II-A opposes the return of “personal” property for four reasons. First, they were seized within the broad scope of the search warrant which permitted seizure of items in or near boxes with classified documents. Second, FBI agents are allowed to seize “commingled” personal documents in order to save time. Third, “Supreme Court precedent provides ‘evidence seized in violation of the fourth amendment, but in good faith pursuant to a warrant, to be used “even against a person aggrieved by the constitutional violations’”. Fourth, Trump has not satisfied the “Richey test” for return of documents proper to trial, which are: 1) callous disregard of the law by the FBI; 2) need for the material; 3) “irreparable harm” by denial of the documents; and 4) whether there is an adequate remedy at law. Argument II-B asserts that Trump has shown the traditional basis for the issuance of an injunction to stop review of the seized materials while his motion is pending. Argument III opposes, on its merits, the motion to appoint a special master. III-A says that, in general, appointment of a “master” requires exceptional circumstances. III-B makes three assertions: 1) technically, Trump may not invoke executive privilege against the Executive Branch of the government; 2) “the records are essential to a criminal investigation into the handling of the records themselves, and the government is also reviewing these highly sensitive records to determine whether their handling created risks to national security”: and 3) under traditional principles of equity, a master should not be appointed. III-C argues that the attorney-client issues in this case are not complex enough to require a master. III-D asks the Court to establish certain practice guidelines if a Master is appointed. Argument I cannot be correct because the DOJ admits that some of the records are personal. Argument II-A virtually admits that the warrant was overly-broad in order to allow the FBI to seize anything that if found at Mar-a-Lago, and that, once it acquired the records, a heavy burden has been placed upon Trump to prove “bad faith”. Argument III-B relies upon formulaic rhetoric: “an ongoing legal investigation” and “risks to national security”. What investigations, when were they started, and what national security risks? (What happened to the nuclear secrets argument?) Hopefully, Judge Cannon will ask the Master to penetrate the rhetoric. To some extent, the FBI is on trial to show that it is still not engaged in a crusade to destroy Donald Trump.

  8. Nicole Wallace on MSNBC. What is wrong with her? Really, what happened to her? Did CIA MK Ultra get to her brain? Because she is S.I.C.K. Sick. Mixed up wack job propagandist spewer. Just disgusting garbage person.

  9. It seems that Svelaz can’t get names straight. He responded to me where I was not involved. Earlier, he said I was John Say, and John Say was S.Meyer. We all know that Svelaz is thin in the head, and those posters also recognize it. I won’t disagree with them because they seem to be reasonably correct and recognize how Stupid Svelaz is. Whether Svelaz the Clueless tried to pretend to be Anonymous the Stupid elsewhere, cannot be said, but postings under the alias anonymous seem to have made the same mistake.

    All is well since more people recognize Svelaz for what he is, so they should keep up the good work. My only question is, is Svelaz as dumb as he sounds, or is he paid to act dumb?

    1. So says Meyer, who has at different times referred to an anonymous commenter as multiple other people, including Svelaz, Jeff Silberman, Elvis Bug, and Seth Warner.

      Meyer always criticizes others for his own failings.

      1. Anonymous the Stupid, you are showing your ignorance. You know, and I think you even commented when Svelaz called me John Say and Jon Say, S. Meyer. I use my anonymous icon when the discussion goes too far off the track and with you. When Svelaz starts to get too confused, I might post anonymously with my initials at the end to make it easy for those uninterested to trash it. I think we should all disregard anonymous labels.

        Most of the time, when talking to you, I leave little doubt about who I am by using your name, Anonymous the Stupid, or your initials, ATS, also for easy trashing. If others are thought to be me, and they are someone else, that is fine if they call you and Svelaz Stupid. That is the truth, though Svelaz is very low in the dumps. Some even use my name When naming themselves. If you are confused, too bad.

        S.M.

        1. Meyer, you regularly call multiple people Anonymous the Stupid.

          The truth is, you call people you regularly disagree with “stupid” (and often nastier insults) because you’re a troll.

          1. So long as the posts are anonymous it is not possible to tell if SM is tagging one person or many.

            He seems to reserve his ATS tag for posts that are pointless, stupid and fallacy – not mere disagreement.

            It should cause you to think that as a rule – with exceptions the quality of posts from the left is significantly below the rest.
            and the further left the lower the quality.

            1. He reserves his ATS tag for liberal anonymous commenters he dislikes. As an anonymous commenter, it’s extremely easy for me to know that he has used it for me and also for hundreds of comments that are not mine. His responses often consist of nothing but insults and false claims. As for your opinion that “the quality of posts from the left is significantly below the rest,” your opinion is not a fact.

              1. “He seems to reserve his ATS tag for posts that are pointless, stupid and fallacy – not mere disagreement.”

                No ATS. I reserve Anonymous the Stupid and ATS for you only.

                “As an anonymous commenter, it’s extremely easy for me to know that he has used it for me and also for hundreds of comments that are not mine.”

                ATS, you are a known liar and trickster, so anyone with common sense knows you are trying to deceive. I even predicted when you would be spiteful and use an address that would take down your name and all other names below. That is not nice to others, but you don’t care about others. Here is the link.

                https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/10/the-vaccine-mandates-the-supreme-court-considers-a-trip-to-major-questions-land/comment-page-1/#comment-2150023

                In that time period, you also claimed I couldn’t tell which was ATS and which was not. You claimed I named another ATS who wasn’t you. I copied what I said and it clearly said that I couldn’t be sure if that comment was yours or not. You were wrong again.

                It’s not a big deal. I am sure I make occasional mistakes because short comments can be very similar. However, if they are posting anonymously and using similar language along with stupid answers being called Anonymous the Stupid is the least of their problems.

                If you want to have an intelligent discussion void of lies and deceit, my name is prominently displayed in those types of discussions.

                1. “I reserve Anonymous the Stupid and ATS for you only.”

                  You may believe that, but you regularly use it for others as well. You’ve used it for more than one person just on this single page of comments.

                  “I am sure I make occasional mistakes”

                  You make frequent mistakes. Every day.

                  1. ATS, you lie to much. Barring error I am honest. Anyone can read the above reply to you and see it. I’ll repeat it so you can read it again. I even linked to a bit of your dishonesty and spitefulness.

                    “He seems to reserve his ATS tag for posts that are pointless, stupid and fallacy – not mere disagreement.”

                    No ATS. I reserve Anonymous the Stupid and ATS for you only.

                    “As an anonymous commenter, it’s extremely easy for me to know that he has used it for me and also for hundreds of comments that are not mine.”

                    ATS, you are a known liar and trickster, so anyone with common sense knows you are trying to deceive. I even predicted when you would be spiteful and use an address that would take down your name and all other names below. That is not nice to others, but you don’t care about others. Here is the link.

                    https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/10/the-vaccine-mandates-the-supreme-court-considers-a-trip-to-major-questions-land/comment-page-1/#comment-2150023

                    In that time period, you also claimed I couldn’t tell which was ATS and which was not. You claimed I named another ATS who wasn’t you. I copied what I said and it clearly said that I couldn’t be sure if that comment was yours or not. You were wrong again.

                    It’s not a big deal. I am sure I make occasional mistakes because short comments can be very similar. However, if they are posting anonymously and using similar language along with stupid answers being called Anonymous the Stupid is the least of their problems.

                    If you want to have an intelligent discussion void of lies and deceit, my name is prominently displayed in those types of discussions.

              2. There are almost no liberal posters at all here.

                The modern left is incredibly illiberal.

                Playing word games destroys your credibility.

            2. “He seems to reserve his ATS tag for posts that are pointless, stupid and fallacy – not mere disagreement.”

              John, you hit the nail on the head. Moreover, when a good discussion is possible, I use my alias, S, Meyer. People skip over anonymous postings, so I fixed two problems. They can skip the ones that aren’t productive while viewing those that are. ATS seldom engages in those productive responses.

      2. Why is it that all of you are so fixated on what names people are posting under ?

        There is only one circumstance I care about – someone faking being me.

        I have established a reputation posting as John B. Say.
        You can rant about it, but many here know when they see a post in that name that
        it will be factual and well argued and they can trust it.

        That is value that I have created, and that I will protect if others actually try to post as me.

        You post as anonymous – which is fine, but when you do you lose all reputation, all history, all credibility.
        Of course you also get to disconnect yourself from past error, but still at the cost of starting each and every post with no credibility at all. If you are OK with that fine.

        SM thinks he can tell which anonymous posts are yours,
        I have no interest in a fools errand.

        because you post as anonymous – you can own or disown any anonymous posts you want and
        no one can prove you wrong. Of course there is also no reason to beleive you either.
        That is the price of being anonymous.

        If you are posting under another name – fine with me. If you are posting under a dozen names.
        So what.

        SM seems to care. I do not. Nor do I understand why anyone would.

        1. John B Say,
          I read your posts as they are well thought out, and intelligent.
          Same goes for several others who post here.
          I ignore all the Anonymous, unless they address me directly or make a comment that I can address with a degree of experience. I can never keep track of which one is which, and many times they are a waste of time to read. Better to just scroll past them.

          1. I also ignore all the Anonymous posters which is a shame, because the ‘good’ one posts some thoughtful things. Some of my own comments are totally disposable at times, but at least I’m honest enough to use my real name and am not paid to wreak havoc (that convinces no one, incidentally). I’m grateful for the space, and I legitimately enjoy most people’s contributions.

            1. There are reasons not to use your real name.
              There are even rarely reasons to post completely anonymously.

              But the farther you are from a solid identity, the less credible you are and the less of a reputation you can build.

              Some people here know my real name. Anyone can figure it out if they want.
              But I do have a dangerous cyber stalker who will go after me with employers, clients, …

          2. Sorry, my remarks were overly broad. Obviously there are people who do not get bent out of shape over who is using multiple names.

            But many are, including those I otherwise respect.

            I prefer that people use an identity. If they choose more than one – that is their choice.
            If they post anonymously – their choice. So long as they do not try to burden me with sorting which posts come from which anonymous.

            I asume that if people forge posts as others, that the person whose posts are being forged will speak out.

          3. “I ignore all the Anonymous, … Better to just scroll past them.”

            That is smart Upstate. All should practice scrolling past, including mine. If I have something significant to say new, I make sure I use my alias.

            Farmers don’t have a lot of time to waste, unlike leftists, who have so much time that they can run into the streets violently protesting, burning buildings, and causing harm to people and communities.

        2. “Why is it that all of you are so fixated on what names people are posting under ?”

          John the continuity of a name is like history. History helps us to understand what is important today and how to manage the future.

          1. I agree, and when you abandon a name and jump to another, you divorce yourself from the reputation you established. You are admitting that reputation was an albatross arround your neck and you need to start over.

            When you start over – you may have removed the albatross, but you have not gained a good reputation.
            New name, no history, no reputation, no credibility.

            If people – mostly on the left have so destroyed their reputation they choose to start over from scratch.
            I am OK with that.

            They are still the same people, absent a change they will destroy the credibility of their new identity rapidly.

            1. “I agree, and when you abandon a name and jump to another, you divorce yourself from the reputation you established. You are admitting that reputation was an albatross arround your neck and you need to start over.”

              That is why Anonymous the Stupid remains anonymous with a lot of pretend friends.

  10. Trump’s lawyers have filed a response to the government:
    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64911367/58/trump-v-united-states/

    They still don’t claim that Trump had declassified the documents.

    Other lawyers are already criticizing it. Example:
    L. Luppen: “The Trump team has filed their reply to the DOJ filing in the special master proceeding, once again displaying (imo) his attorneys’ dim understanding of the issues at play. They start out with a citation to Wong Sun, which is an exclusionary rule case in a post-charging context. … That’s a case about keeping evidence out of a trial because the search was illegal, and if Trump gets charged he’ll have the opportunity to argue that. What he’s purportedly seeking now is return of seized evidence under rule 41(g).”

    But Trump’s lawyers state “Movant has not yet filed a Rule 41(g) motion.” They’re just focused on the issue of a Special Master. Wong Sun doesn’t apply to that either.

    I’ll be interested to read about tomorrow’s hearing and see the judge’s ruling.

    In unrelated news, AK now has a Democratic Rep. in the House, Mary Peltola, the first Alaska Native representative in Congress.

      1. I didn’t intend it to be related to the Topic at hand. I suppose I could have Titled it “BREAKING NEWS”.
        But since you bring Focus up. I will restate it differently (although I did not intend this to being with).

        All of Us on this Topic of Boxes at Mar-a-Logo are “So Tuned-In’ that we are “Tuning-Out” on what the
        Parties (the Dems in this case) are doing elsewhere, They could park a Battleship in your Driveway
        and You wouldn’t even know it.

        B.T.W., We should be concerned about what is done with the Electoral College. It has come to play in a big way in a lot of Elections.

        1. The law simply says that the CA electors must vote for the state’s popular vote winner. That should be true in all states but unfortunately is not. It has nothing to do with “red wave.” BTW, a Democrat just flipped the AK House seat in a special election.

          1. Gavin Newsom wants to make sure there is not going to be any Electoral Defectors when He runs in 2024.
            And I am certain that DNC feels the same.

            F.Y.I.
            Possible Presidential Candidates in 2024
            https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2024

            I vote Republican the majority of the time, however having lived in California from the 90s-2010 in the Bay Area,
            The Dem Candidate Ticket I would choose would be Tulsi Gubbard (Pres.) and Willie Brown (V.P.).
            Fat Chance that would happen, Tulsi has gotten wise to the D.C. Corrosiveness and Willy is getting to Old (but he is a brilliant Politician).
            Anythings better than Harris or Newsom.

            Guess I’ve got to wait to see what the Repubs come up with. Rand Paul would ok, don’t have a V.P. pick yet.
            Maybe we have a 3rd Party Independent in the race.

            We’ll see.
            .

            1. Everything “Goofy” Gavin does is unconstitutional.

              He cannot participate in free enterprise.

              He cannot dictate or manipulate commercial free market activity.

              He cannot compel commercial purchases.

              He cannot use the tax code to manipulate commerce and free market activity.

              He cannot deny the right to private property or “claim or exercise” dominion over private property.

              He cannot assume powers reserved to the people that the people are capable of executing.
              ________________________________________________________________________

              OR

              “…reserved to the [people], or to the [States]…”
              ______________________________________

              10 Amendment

              The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

              1. Judges and Justices of the Supreme Court swore an oath to support the Constitution.

                Where is their support for what the Constitution says.

                Where are they?

          2. The law simply says that the CA electors must vote for the state’s popular vote winner.

            How does that get enforce?

            Electors are there to account for changing facts from the date of election, until the EC votes are counted. A law to bind the electors to the popular vote violates the constitution.

            1. Many states have laws binding electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state.

              None of those laws has been found unconstitutional.

              1. Address the constitutional principle.

                The law changes the constitution. If electors chosen before the election, cannot vote freely, the electors serve no purpose. Stripping them of power needs an amendment.

                1. Per the Constitution, the selection of electors is a state matter, not a federal one.

                  You’re wrong that “The law changes the constitution.”

  11. Hugo Lowell: “New: Trump lawyer Alina Habba told NY State AG in May that she personally searched for materials in that [NY] investigation all over Mar-a-Lago — raising the possibility she might have come across the classified docs without a clearance, making her a potential witness in the DOJ case.”

    https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=jurj2ITrDTrAJW/JpaeMsg==&system=prod
    “On May 5, 2022, I diligently searched each and every room of Respondent’s private residence located at Mar-a-Lago, including all desks, drawers, nightstands, dressers, closets, etc. … I diligently searched Respondent’s personal office located at Mar-
    a-Lago, including all desks, drawers, file cabinets, etc.”

  12. “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. ” This is an embarrassingly stupid argument that bespeaks pro-Trump bias.

    First it’s not a sentence. Consider having somebody sane proofread your posts.

    The picture shows evidence of Trump’s various crimes laid out on the floor. When the police array cash, drugs, and guns on table, is that seen by many as evidence of how the drug dealer stored their contraband?

    Lastly, professor, why did Trump steal all these sensitive defense documents, fail to return them upon request, and lie about it? Also, why are you participating in this obvious smokescreen regarding the request for the Special Master? Do you think law enforcement will unsee the documents they have had for a month?

    Trump has repeatedly and openly attacked our constitutional order. Why are you so eager to help him confuse the public?

    1. Trump has since admitted that those documents were in cartons in his office. I guess he’s abandoned his story about them having been planted. He just wants everyone to know that they weren’t spread on the floor by him, as if anyone would think that he was the one who’d arranged them for a photo, making sure that none of the actual classified info is made public. SMDH.

    2. “First it’s not a sentence. Consider having somebody sane proofread your posts.”

      Why do grammar scolds insist on shooting themselves in the foot?

  13. Just remember that Trump said the FBI spied on his campaign. Those on the left said it did not happen. Then it was found out that the FBI altered the information that it presented to the FISA judge that caused the judge to allow the spying on a member of the Trump campaign by the FBI. So how can we trust the FBI when it has displayed a history of changing the evidence to meet it’s desired outcome. The left is backing up the FBI except the FBI whistleblowers who have come forward to tell us that their superiors killed the Hunter laptop story by falsely telling us that the laptop was Russian disinformation. Now after years of lying to us we are expected to accept what they are saying today. They really really do think that you are stupid enough to fall for it again.

    1. There is apparently a whole bunch of people out there who ARE stupid enough to fall for it again. My thought is thank God Garland is not on the Supreme Court, as he seems to do the bidding of others rather than live by his own principles and oath of office.

  14. Uh, documents are classified by the classification of the highest classified level of any document in a box, file, folder or what have you. A PHOTOGRAPH of documents containing Top Secret information would automatically be classified TOP SECRET and could not be released to the public. The DOJ is playing a shell game.

    1. They didn’t photograph the contents. They photographed the classification markings. Pay closer attention to relevant details.

          1. The Stupidity of that comment should be recognized by everyone.

            SM (My initials are an effort to stop you from getting dizzy, falling, and hitting your head again. Enough damage has already been done.

            1. Svelaz is correct that the purpose of declassifying documents is to make them available to the public. Declassified documents are available via a FOIA request, and many don’t even require that.

              Meyer, you are the stupid person you complain about.

              1. ATS, you reveal your ignorance of the subject and tell us you make things up as you go along or lie. Svelaz said: ” If the were they would have been available to view publicly.”

                Many declassified documents are not available to view publicly. In fact, organizations like Judicial Watch can’t even read them. They have to resort to FOIA requests to view them.

                Your type of ignorance would be dangerous if you had any significant position related to the subject matter. Presently your lack of knowledge can only hurt the minds of people who lack common sense or are ignorant of the subject matter.

                1. Meyer the Obsessed Troll Liar: notice that you are responding to me, but attacking Svelaz’s claim, and you do not counter MY claim, which was accurate: Svelaz is correct that the purpose of declassifying documents is to make them available to the public. Declassified documents are available to the public via a FOIA request, and many don’t even require that.

                  You’ve confirmed that they’re available by FOIA, as the purpose of declassifying documents is to make them available to the public, whether or not they must be requested via FOIA.

                  If you were a good faith discussant instead of a troll, you’d have responded to Svelaz with what you now indicate: some declassified documents are not publicly viewable until someone submits a FOIA request. But they are all available through FOIA. That is, in fact, one of the key reasons that the entity that declassifies the document has to let the government know that it’s declassified: so that the government knows whether the document can now be released in response to a FOIA request or if it’s still classified and they instead should tell the person who submitted the FOIA request that they will not get it in response to their FOIA request because it is still classified. It would contradict the purpose of declassification if Trump were to declassify something but fail to inform the government that it had been declassified.

                  By any standard measure, I’m smarter than you are. You just dislike me so much that your brain distorts your view of reality (either that, or you’re knowingly lying — but I assume that you ignorantly believe what you say). Of course, your distorted view isn’t reality.

                  1. “Meyer the Obsessed Troll Liar: notice that you are responding to me, but attacking Svelaz’s claim”

                    ATS, you brought the claim up. I didn’t want you to sit there with your thumb in your mouth not realizing the claim was invalid. You need to reread what Svelaz said. Declassifying helps open records to the public.

                    However, I was answering this statement: “None have been declassified. If the were they would have been available to view publicly.”

                    Just because the records are declassified doesn’t mean they are open to the public. Look at the documents declassified by Trump about the Russia Hoax. Have they reached the public? No. Therefore, I think my response that I recopy is correct and you need to reread everything. I will quote myself.

                    “Many declassified documents are not available to view publicly. In fact, organizations like Judicial Watch can’t even read them. They have to resort to FOIA requests to view them.

                    Your type of ignorance would be dangerous if you had any significant position related to the subject matter. Presently your lack of knowledge can only hurt the minds of people who lack common sense or are ignorant of the subject matter.”

                  2. “If you were a good faith discussant instead of a troll, “

                    ATS, you were trolling as evidenced by your statements. In good faith I answered the question and answered it again under my own alias. There is no way to deal with your type of stupidity. You were wrong. Face it.

                  3. “But they are all available through FOIA. “

                    You are twisting with pain. They are available with FOIA if one has the money and the knowledge. However, despite all the attorney’s and knowledge that Judicial Watch has, many declassified documents repeatedly requested have not been sent after years of requests.

                    That proves you wrong again. You have a problem with reality. Many extreme leftist fascists have that same problem.

                    1. Name a declassified document that the government has refused to release through a FOIA. I’ll wait (but I won’t hold my breath, as you generally run away from backing up your claims with evidence).

                    2. Judicial Watch has many documents they have been unable to get. You can check with them or you can look for the Russia Hoax documents that Trump declassified. If you can get them and post all of them, I will pay you.

                    3. You’re the one with the burden of proof for your claim, not me.

                      I’m not going to waste my time carrying out your search for you.

                      Apparently you’re unable to give even 1 example of a declassified document that Judicial Watch could not obtain through a FOIA request.

                    4. It is a well known fact so I need not waste my time, but if I remember I’ll link you to Judicial Watch when they write about a FOIA request.

                      In the meantime, the Russia Hoax documents were declassified and not released. That alone proves your blowing smoke.

                  4. “By any standard measure, I’m smarter than you are. “

                    Anonymous the Stupid, you say that because you know what people think, so you are trying to prove yourself. I don’t have to.

                    1. No, idiot, I say it because it’s true. You don’t like that truth, so you deny it. You want to be able to call others stupid with impunity, which is part of what makes you a troll.

                    2. “No, idiot, I say it because it’s true. You don’t like that truth, so you deny it. You want to be able to call others stupid with impunity, which is part of what makes you a troll.”

                      You say it to prop up your bad reputation. I don’t have to say anything about myself and I didn’t. Here is the quote.

                      “Anonymous the Stupid, you say that because you know what people think, so you are trying to prove yourself. I don’t have to.”.

  15. The government is throwing up a strawman when it claims that classified documents were found based on the fact that they had a yellow border or whatever. They know that documents can be declassified (Trump says that all documents taken to Mar-a-Lago were declassified) and still be marked classified. Conversely, unmarked documents can be classified as with Clinton’s server.

    1. Trump’s lawyers haven’t claimed in the court docs that he declassified those items. Trump can lie to the public, but lawyers lying to the court can lead to disbarment.

      Also, the whole point of declassification is to make the info available to the public, so if Trump didn’t notify the government that he declassified them, it defeats the purpose.

      1. Trump’s lawyers haven’t claimed in the court docs that he declassified those items

        If you being charged with a crime, you don’t waste time presenting you defense in pre trial hearings. The judge has already ruled the documents are classified. There is no relief available form judges at this point.

        But, you keep saying classification is meaningless. Yet DoJ keeps focusing on the marked classified documents. But that’s exactly what you would do if the only trial that is going to happen is the trial of public opinion and elections are less than 70 days away. That’s exactly what a DoJ acting as the Democart Party secret police would do.

        1. “The judge has already ruled the documents are classified”

          What order did that? (Just give the document number or quote the ruling.)

    2. olesmithy: Precisely.
      Although others at this site have expressed various opinions on what the dispositive issue is, I see it as falling under the “if a tree falls in a forest…” scenario. To wit:
      If a document is declassified by a then-POTUS on or before January 20 (whether taken then or already located at Mar-a-Lago), -but no one follows up on the E.O. “procedural” MARKINGS thereafter,- is the document still de facto (AND de jure) “declassified?”
      I have noticed that the DOJ is very careful to describe seized documents as “marked classified,”–not as “classified.”
      That tells me that its assertions are equivocal even to its own internal staff, despite external displays of confidence.
      And I also believe that, realizing this, it has come up with the new (fallback/backup) allegation of “obstruction.” This also bears upon its assertions that Trump’s attorneys had dishonestly signed that all “classified” material had been returned…
      (p.s. we [several adults] were just reminiscing on Mad Magazine’s “Spy vs. Spy” cartoons the other day.)

      1. Trump’s attorneys haven’t claimed in their filings that the documents were declassified.

        The alleged crimes don’t depend on whether they were classified.

        And the whole point of declassifying documents is to make them available to the public. It is a contradiction in terms to claim that they’ve been declassified without notifying the government that the public can now access them.

        1. Anonymous: please stay on point- I did not argue whether the alleged crimes depended on classification. I didn’t even MENTION it. What I DID say was that DOJ constantly refers to the documents as “marked classified.” Why do you think it is doing that?

          1. Why? Well it seems they are still…continuously and vociferously…trying to find a crime to fit Trump. They screwed this up pretty badly I think. Who is to say that they did not plant documents? Their credibility is so low from past illegal escapades against Trump, it’s easy for people to believe that they might have. And now, they have had these documents in their hands for long enough to mess with them, so giving them to a Special Master still has the cloud of suspicion over them. What a mess. If you’re going to do crap like this, at least be good at it.

                1. Figure out how to follow a conversation. The guy asked Who is to say that they did not plant documents? and Trump admits that they weren’t planted.

                  1. You responded “Trump admitted today that the documents were in cartons at MaL”

                    Wake up. Your mom is calling you for breakfast.

                    S.M.

          2. You literally asked “If a document is declassified by a then-POTUS on or before January 20 (whether taken then or already located at Mar-a-Lago), -but no one follows up on the E.O. “procedural” MARKINGS thereafter,- is the document still de facto (AND de jure) “declassified?””

            Trump’s lawyers haven’t claimed that they were declassified, so the conditional clause of your conditional query seems to be false.

            As for why DOJ is referring to the markings, as as start: presumably it’s true, and it’s sufficient for their argument that “any such materials marked as classified are essential to a criminal investigation into the handling of the records themselves.”

            1. ??????
              Your peripheral argument is exactly that. My first paragraph about ANALOGY to “tree in a forest” was exactly that: the media DOJ, and comments here all seem to focus on the classification of documents.
              But the CRUX of my comment was what you ignored, to wit:
              “I have noticed that the DOJ is very careful to describe seized documents as ‘marked classified,’ not as ‘classified.’
              That tells me that its assertions are equivocal even to its own internal staff, despite external displays of confidence.
              And I also believe that, realizing this, it has come up with the new (fallback/backup) allegations of ‘obstruction.’ This also bears upon its assertions that Trump’s attorneys had dishonestly signed that all ‘classified’ material had been returned…”
              What you apparently fail to see, respectfully, is the inconsistencies in DOJ’s arguments/justifications. thanks anyway.

              1. I haven’t been focusing on the classification. I’ve repeatedly pointed out that the alleged crimes do not depend on the documents being classified.

                “That tells me that its assertions are equivocal even to its own internal staff …”

                It doesn’t imply that.

                “it has come up with the new (fallback/backup) allegations of ‘obstruction.’”

                It’s not new. It’s one of the alleged crimes on the warrant and part of what they’re investigating.

                FWIW, in tonight’s filing, Trump’s lawyers seem to concede that some of the seized materials remain highly classified and the Special Master should have a TS/SCI clearance.

                1. ??? So again, what was your point??? Now you are telling me that “in tonight’s filings,” some docs may be classified, –but you just finished telling me that you have consistently argued that the classification doesn’t matter???? So why are you even telling me this???
                  Listen, we likely both agree that classification does not matter, but we differ in that I believe the DOJ is politically motivated in its zealous endeavor…. and the TIMING of events has remained suspect from the start. Its “hurry up and wait” record, as the military says, is interesting at best, conniving at worst.
                  I believe DOJ will have a very hard time establishing criminal “intent” in wrongdoing. Which is why its focus keeps shifting, to the point where it prematurely hints that it may not prosecute after all, in the end.

              2. BTW, the DOJ is also clearly treating the material as classified. For example, they noted yesterday that “In some instances, even the FBI counterintelligence personnel and DOJ attorneys conducting the review required additional clearances before they were permitted to review certain documents.”

              3. And then there’s the part that says “All of the classified documents seized in the August 8 search have been segregated from the rest of the seized documents and are being separately maintained and stored in accordance with appropriate procedures for handling and storing classified information.”

                You’re reading things into the phrasing that simply do not make sense in the context of everything they said in the motion.

                1. Has anyone proven Trump didn’t declassify the documents when he was President? No. that is the rub. When you can prove he didn’t declassify them, come back and let us know.

                  SM (so you don’t get confused and fall on your head)

                  1. Has anyone proven Trump didn’t declassify the documents when he was President?

                    Anonymous lies to himself. I have tried to get him to admit the President’s power to declassify is absolute. He Just deflects
                    The President also has final say on DNI. Being the C

                    1. Being the Commander and Chief of the Nations military. Being the Constitution requires civilian control of military. NDI is exactly the same as classified

                  2. For the umpteenth time: Trump’s lawyers have not claimed in their filings that these documents were declassified, and the alleged crimes do not depend on whether they were classified.

                    Trump has conceded that they should have a Special Master with a TS/SCI clearance, which would be unnecessary if all the documents had been declassified.

                    1. And I repeat, It is useless to argue a defense against charges not yet filed, in routine court filings. That’s the role of trials. The Judge is not going to toss the Govts case at this time.

                    2. It’s quite relevant to whether the Special Master does or does not need to have a TS/SCI clearance. The pool of people with TS/SCI clearances is much smaller than the pool of those without.

                      Again: Trump’s lawyers conceded that if a Special Master is appointed, s/he should have a TS/SCI clearance.

                    3. ATS, this comment is foolish and ignorant. [John’s rule applies here: “He seems to reserve his ATS tag for posts that are pointless, stupid and fallacy – not mere disagreement.”]

                      ” Trump’s lawyers conceded”

                      The word, conceded, is deceptive. They likely agreed it was reasonable.

                      ” TS/SCI clearances” can be granted. However, I would be suspicious of anyone on the left or in the FBI. We have already seen that despite all types of clearances many in the FBI did illegal things, (ie FISA) and have not followed the rule of law.

                      SM (initial also used to prevent apoplexy and head injury.)

                    4. No one has conceded that any documents ARE classified. Only that some documents WERE classified.

                      It normally takes about 2 yrs to get a TS/SCI clearance – or it did in 2003. You can get a preliminary TS/SCI in 18 months. But that is still far too long for this.

                      No matter what the DOJ/FBI need to allow this to be dealt with by a third party in order to restore their credibility.
                      Further if they really want to get credibility back then need a special master that Trump supporters would listen to.

                    5. Why do Trump’s lawyers have to make such claims? The proof you use to back up your points have little if any meaning.

                    6. “They likely agreed it was reasonable.”

                      You don’t have to guess about what’s “likely.” You can know with 100% certainty what they said, if you simply read their response, filed in court yesterday.

                    7. ATS, you have shown nothing. Your interpretation is what we are hearing, but you lack anything that substantiates what you say. You are known to lie and deceive, so we need the quote in context and the link that you perceive as evidence. Otherwise we have to rely on the history of a liar and a trickster.

  16. Biden’s handlers and Democrats leading Congress care not a wit about average Americans. Joe/Jill/Hunter Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, et al typify what Democrats represent: the wealthy. Their recent history with COVID lockdowns, open borders, student loan forgiveness, “green” energy, all of these benefit the wealthy. Working Americans get stuck with their largess. Americans largely are focused on inflation, violent crime, polarization, a dysfunctional political system. Meanwhile, all Biden knows how to do, like every current Left Wing Democrat, is to excoriate Americans, particularly parents with young children. Enough of their targeting Trump and Americans to distract from their irreligious left wing, woke agendas. They are the party of the “overclass”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-party-overclass-student-loans-working-vaccines-grocery-hourly-college-debt-university-progressives-elite-morals-virtue-11661961896

    Democrats Are the Party of the Overclass
    By Batya Ungar-Sargon

    “From student loans to Covid restrictions, the left seeks to make the wealthy wealthier.”

    The green agenda fits the pattern too. Progressives zip around in Teslas, a symbol of both affluence and virtue, while union members in the energy sector lose their jobs. Progressives push to release mentally ill drug addicts into working-class communities where they prey on vulnerable people of color—while they themselves live in nice neighborhoods with astronomical rents, polishing their halos.

    Covid lockdowns worked this way, too. Home values skyrocketed and privately educated children leapt ahead of their Zooming public-school counterparts. Affluent office employees worked at home while waiters and nurses braved the plague and then were forced to take the vaccine so the wealthy would feel comfortable being waited on.

    Student-loan forgiveness isn’t an aberration. It’s the apotheosis of today’s progressivism, which is devoted to transferring wealth upward.

    1. Student loan forgiveness for those making under $125K doesn’t transfer wealth upwards.

      You know what did transfer wealth upwards? The huge tax break for the wealthy that the GOP enacted.
      You know what else does that? Our tax laws, which tax investment income at a lower rate than employment income.

      1. Anonymous, you don’t think that you are rich because you and your hubby make $250,000 per year but to the family who are bringing in $80,000 per year your wealth is beyond their wildest dreams. They make $40.00 per hour and you make $120.00 per hour but somehow you don’t think your well of. The families making $80,000 per year know that the loan forgiveness is just a handout to the suburban mom so she will keep voting for the Democratic Socialist Party. We should not be surprised by the party that wants to hand you a “D” shaped donut and a cup of coffee when you walk in the polling place door.

        1. If my family made $250K, I’d say that we’re rich. Don’t pretend to speak for me.

          I paid off my undergrad student loans long ago, and I’m smart enough that I was awarded competitive fellowships for my doctoral studies, and between that and research/teaching assistantships, I didn’t have any debt from grad school. I get $0 from loan forgiveness. I still favor it, though I would have structured it differently, instead cancelling out the interest. Many people who took out loans have paid back enough to cover the principal but are still paying off the accrued interest.

  17. But he allows the likes of you and a Doris Wilson to impart your vacuous and undignified comments on this forum. He allows trolls their time to show themselves, and they never fail to do so. They are blessed by one they can never hope to equal in stature.

Leave a Reply