When the Justice Department filed its opposition to a Special Master, there were a number of elements that immediately stood out. The first that I noted was the most important: the allegation that the FBI believed that Trump or his associates “likely” acted to obstruct their investigation. Such public statements are always serious in a criminal case because they can commit investigators to the path of prosecution. I also later noted the curious inclusion of the now widely known photo of classified files that has been widely published. I warned that the photo could leave a misleading impression that this was how the documents were found by the FBI, which has occurred. I then asked why it was included as Attachment F. At best, it seems superfluous. At worst, it could be staging. That debate is now raging on cable programs and the Internet. Update: the photo came up in the hearing after the Trump counsel called it “perfectly staged” but there was no ruling on the Special Master.
As I mentioned earlier, the photo was entirely unnecessary. The attachment is referenced only once in noting that documents had covers with classified markings. That point has not been disputed and the court hardly needs a picture of these documents to establish the point.
Then there is the picture itself. I immediately flagged the danger of people misreading the photo because the photo did not state whether this was a picture of how the documents were found as opposed to placed by agents. That fear was quickly proved valid as various people assumed that Trump or his staff had left classified material strewn across the floor.
Putting aside that anticipated confusion, there remains the motive in the inclusion of the photo. Since I fail to see the need for this single photo, I have said that it appeared included for public consumption. Some on the left have insisted that it is “ludicrous” to suggest such a motive despite a series of leaks from the government as the Justice Department was in court demanding absolute secrecy.
The only textual reference is found on page 13 and 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”).”
Other basic facts in the filing did not seem to warrant such photo support. Yet, the reason for the concern is not simply because the photo was superfluous. It was also the photo itself. The documents were laid out for the photo and evidence marker with a box that prominently featured Trump’s collection of framed Time magazine covers. (Trump was previously ridiculed for his hanging of faux Time covers in his resort).
It is possible that the FBI was showing that these files were 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 to show the commingling of documents raised in other parts of the filing. We simply do not know.
It is, also, entirely possible that the placement of the documents next to these Time covers was not intentional. However, a great number of photos were taken of the scene from individual documents to boxes to the storage room. Of all of those documents, the Justice Department selected this photo even though some of the covers had to be redacted. This was the only photo that the Justice Department wanted released into the public docket.
When combined with the leaks from the government, there is a reasonable concern that the photo was included not for the court but for public consumption to help frame the public debate. It is striking to see so many pundits on the left expressing shock that we should doubt that claims or representations of the government, particularly after the documented history of bias and false statements by Department officials in related Trump investigations.
In the end, this is not nearly as important as the affirmative statement that agents believed that obstructive conduct had occurred. Yet, with the objections to the leaks from the government, such concerns are magnified when the Justice Department is resisting the release of any information from its prior filings. That control of the framing of the public record is a huge advantage that the government has used in prior cases.
Best-case scenario for Trump: While still president, he takes many documents to his residence (which was a SCIF). Most of the documents relate to anti-Trump efforts over the last four years: Russia Gate, prior FBI spying on him/his family/Trump offices, FBI bias and lies to FISA court, etc. He genuinely believes that he will prevail in claims that Biden did not win the election fairly. On of before January 20, he tells his staff to declassify all that he has taken and assumes that they will follow-up with protocol. He genuinely believes that he has a right to declassify and retain these documents at Mar-a-Lago until further review. After all, in his mind, other presidents took classified/declassified material to their residences without ado. Incoming Biden-administration staff and NAR fail to declassify them and NAR turns the matter over to the FBI. Moreover, the massive raid was overly-broad and violated Fourth Amendment and various privilege rights, as well as seizure of material outside of the scope of the warrant.
Worst case scenario: Trump intentionally and with criminal intent tried to hide these documents (classified or not) from government authorities. He and his staff repeatedly lied to authorities. He had no authority to take them in the first place, as they belong to the government. The government made numerous attempts to regain the documents but was met with no other choice than to proceed as it did. Trump’s “genuine” beliefs are irrelevant: his criminal conduct created a potential threat to national security.
Do I have this right?
“Do I have this right?”
Good job Lin. I would consider removing the word criminal and adding a third category. Criminality is so far afield that it is unbelievable and belongs elsewhere. If we were talking about Biden, the word criminality would be appropriate.
At best, mischievous. At worst, legal risk. The threat to national security is, perhaps plausible, but not probable, or actual.
lin,
I’d start with the alleged crimes and consider those when writing your best and worst cases, while also recognizing that the DOJ is still in the midst of investigating.
There were 3 crimes alleged for the search, violations of:
* 18 USC 793e — willful retention of NDI docs that Trump was not authorized to have
* 18 USC 1519 — obstruction of a federal investigation
* 18 USC 2071 — concealment or removal of government records
The worst case is worse than what you describe. It involves all 3 alleged crimes, and perhaps additional ones. For example, did he show classified NDI documents to people who lacked clearances for them? (Alina Habba stated to the court in another case that “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.,” but she doesn’t have a security clearance.) Did he put human confidential sources’ lives at risk? Did any foreign nationals see the materials while visiting him in his office?
He is not the only person at risk in the investigation. For example, the DOJ’s response this week notes “The subpoena was directed to the custodian of records for the Office of Donald J. Trump, and it requested ‘[a]ny and all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald J. Trump and/or the Office of Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings [list of classification markings]’” (this is probably why they referred to markings later), and Christina Bobb, his Custodian of Records, certified in part:
… Based upon the information that has been provided to me, I am authorized to certify, on behalf of the Office of Donald J. Trump, the following:
a. A diligent search was conducted of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida;
b. This search was conducted after receipt of the subpoena, in order to locate any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena;
c. Any and all responsive documents accompany this certification; and
d. No copy, written notation, or reproduction of any kind was retained as to any responsive document.
I swear or affirm that the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. …
It’s clearly false that “all responsive documents accompany this certification,” since the FBI search on Aug. 8 turned up many others. Who provided the info to Bobb? (Corcoran? Trump? …) Was her certification truthful? She is now a potential witness or target of the investigation.
Personally, if I wanted to write out the two scenarios, I’d make them parallel (e.g., if you’re going to say “violated Fourth Amendment … rights” in the former, I’d make it clear in the latter that his 4th Amendment rights weren’t violated).
With everything written, anonymous didn’t mention the PRA which governs the President and he forgets that the President and others say the information was declassified. Anonymous has no proof to the contrary and has admitted that by walking away from that question more than once.
That makes virtually everything said by anonymous to be a smokescreen covering up those things he wishes we all forget about.
As I’ve pointed out numerous times, none of the 3 alleged crimes hinges on whether the documents were classified. Trump clearly violated the PRA, but violating the PRA isn’t a crime, it’s a civil matter. The 3 alleged violations, in contrast, are criminal (US Code Title 18, Part I, Crimes (§§ 1 – 2725)).
The grand jury subpoena didn’t ask for classified docs. It asked for:
“the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects: Any and all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald J. Trump and/or the Office of Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings, including but not limited to the following: Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, Top Secret/SI-G/NOFORN/ORCON, Top Secret/SI-G/NOFORN, Top Secret/HCS-0/NOFORN/ORCON, Top Secret/HCS-0/NOFORN, Top Secret/HCS-P/NOFORN/ORCON, TopSecret/HCS-P/NOFORN, Top Secret/TK/NOFORN/ORCON, Top Secret/TK/NOFORN, Secret/NOFORN, Confidential/NOFORN, TS, TS/SAP, TS/SI-G/NF/OC, TS/SI-G/NF, TS/HCS-0/NF/OC, TS/HCS-0/NF, TS/HCS-P/NF/OC, TS/HCS-P/NF, TS/HCS-P/SI-G, TS/HCS-P/SI/TK, TS/TK/NF/OC, TS/TK/NF, S/NF, S/FRD, S/NATO, S/SI, C, and C/NF” (emphasis added)
Do you understand that even if they were declassified, any documents still “bearing classification markings” were supposed to be turned over? They are not Trump’s personal property. They are the government’s property.
ATS, you are too disorganized, and such disorganization probably confuses you. I will provide you with a better-organized explanation in a logical order. In that way, you won’t run back and forth. Instead, you will be forced to deal with each issue as you face them.
1) There was no valid and legal cause for the raid.
——-
2) Trump’s possession of the documents is legal. Trump has a right of access by law, and his possession of them is lawful despite the three statutes you mention.
3) The statutes are general, while the PRA covers specifics.
4) Morton v. Mancari: PRA trumps the three statutes you mention.
5) White House papers have been treated as personal property. Nixon v. the US
6) The PRA doesn’t state how records of a former president should be turned over to the archivist. That matter is negotiated by the two.
7) The PRA guarantees access for the former President to the records.
8) The PRA does not say that custody of records by a former President is unlawful. No other conditions exist in the warrant that would change the President’s lawful holding of the records.
9) The records available to the former President don’t change depending on classification.
10) In June, the FBI was satisfied with the additional lock.
1) The judge disagrees with you, and his opinion matters legally; yours does not.
2) That will be resolved in court.
3) That’s false.
4) That’s false.
5) Nixon v US is a case involving Walter Nixon, a Federal District Judge, and does not say what you assert. Presumably you have the wrong name for whatever case you mean. If you mean Nixon v GSA or US v Nixon, no, neither concluded what you’ve asserted; both ruled against Nixon.
6) The PRA is quite clear: “The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. … Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.” Trump’s term ended on Jan. 20, 2021.
7) Trump didn’t request access. He refused to return documents illegally in his possession and the warrant alleges that he was also obstructing the investigation. The warrant is based on 3 criminal statutes, not the PRA, a civil statute.
8) ditto
9) ditto
10) That’s false, and the DOJ made clear in its filings that Trump was told to properly **secure** the documents, not to get another lock. Securing NDI and/or classified records is covered by law, 32 CFR Parts 2001 and 2003. The DOJ’s statement to Trump was about properly securing the documents. If Trump misunderstood that to be about a lock, it wouldn’t be the first time he’s misunderstood something, but your claim is still false.
“1) The judge disagrees with you, and his opinion matters legally; yours does not.”
More appeals to authority. (I don’t want to get into it, but your statement has at least two logical errors. 1) I listed 10 points, so without guessing what the judge said about each numbered reply, one can see the judge didn’t disagree with all the points. That proves your statement wrong. 2) You say my decision doesn’t matter, which is true, but when the case moves to a higher court, the judge’s decision doesn’t matter either.
Your logic is faulty. One has to be careful dealing with your spin that bends logical reasoning.
“2) That will be resolved in court.”
That is the only statement of fact, and even this might turn out wrong. You have too many factual and logical errors to correct them all. We saw your type of rhetoric repeated during every single ‘get Trump’ hoax that occurred. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.
3) The statutes are general, while the PRA covers specifics. (We are talking about the President or former President, not anyone else.)
4) Morton v. Mancari: PRA trumps the three statutes you mention.
5 )Nixon v. U.S. (1992) This is correct, and you are wrong.
6) A lot of words, but none demonstrate wrongdoing by Trump.
7) Access needs to be defined. Most of what Trump had are copies, not the original database except things where there can be no controversy of ownership. Example: passports.
The PRA is what dictates how to apply record management. Morton v. Mancari: PRA trumps the three statutes you mention. Mostly they do not apply to the President or former President.
8) ditto
9) ditto
10) You write:” That’s false, and the DOJ made clear in its filings that Trump was told to properly **secure** the documents”
As usual, you are appealing to authority. The filings remain redacted, and the affidavit was not released.
This is how you work. You rely on half-truths and spin, none of which is credible. The FBI and DOJ have lied before. Example: FISA lies, and parents called domestic terrorists. Lies dominate this administration and the institutions surrounding it.
Do you want to similarily list all the ‘get Trump’ things you got wrong (starting with the Russia Hoax) where you appealed to authority, and you were wrong, where you wrongfully quoted the law, where you linked to garbage, and where you didn’t know what you were talking about?
Anonymous the Stupid, things change but you do not.
“More appeals to authority.”
ROFL that you think my pointing out the fact that the judge determined the search was legally justified is an appeal to authority. Educate yourself about the actual meaning of “appeal to authority,” with an emphasis on its fallacious use.
“the judge didn’t disagree with all the points. That proves your statement wrong.”
It doesn’t.
“when the case moves to a higher court, the judge’s decision doesn’t matter either.”
IF the case moves to a higher court, THEN you have zero knowledge of what those judges will determine about the warrant signed by Reinhart. They could easily agree with him.
“The statutes are general, while the PRA covers specifics.”
The Title 18 laws are the ones on the warrant. Whether you can admit it or not, they are the alleged crimes.
“Morton v. Mancari: PRA trumps the three statutes you mention.”
Morton v Mancari makes no mention of the PRA or any crimes until Title 18. You’re delusional.
“Nixon v. U.S. (1992) This is correct, and you are wrong.”
No, that case involves a federal judge named Walter Nixon and has nothing to do with this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/506/224
LOL, you’re not only ignorant, but also too lazy to check your own claim.
“you are appealing to authority.”
No, I was pointing out a fact.
“The filings remain redacted, and the affidavit was not released.”
The redacted affidavit was released, and the relevant part of the affidavit — quoting the DOJ’s letter to Trump about securing the materials — is part of what was unsealed. Have you read the unsealed portions of the affidavit, or are you too lazy to do that too?
“Do you want to similarily list all the ‘get Trump’ things you got wrong”
If YOU are asserting it, YOU are the one with the burden of proof for it. You cannot substantiate it, and you will run away from your burden of proof.
“you do not [change].”
Correct: I remain dedicated to a truthful, evidence-based discussion. You don’t change either; you remain Meyer the Obsessed Troll Liar.
>>“More appeals to authority.”
>>ROFL that you think my pointing out the fact that the judge determined the search was legally justified is an appeal to authority.”
You appealed to the authority of the judge, not his ruling.
There were ten points. I am sure the judge’s decision had nothing to do with some of them.
“ROFL”
ROFL is something four-legged animals do.
“IF the case moves to a higher court, THEN you have zero knowledge of what those judges will determine”
Neither does the judge, and that is my point. You are trying to deflect just like you did with all the ‘get Trump’ arguments you engaged. In those arguments, you also appealed to authority and your data was wrong. Eventually, you were silent when more things were revealed proving you wrong.
>>“The statutes are general, while the PRA covers specifics.”
>”The Title 18 laws are the ones on the warrant. Whether you can admit it or not, they are the alleged crimes.”
So what? The PRA applies.
“Morton v Mancari makes no mention of the PRA or any crimes until Title 18. You’re delusional.”
The fact that you can’t make a clear detailed statement demonstrates you don’t know what you are talking about.
>>“Nixon v. U.S. (1992) This is correct, and you are wrong.”
>”No, that case involves a federal judge named Walter Nixon and has nothing to do with this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/506/224”
Did it ever occur to you that you might be looking up the wrong case? Of course not, you are ATS.
Nixon v. U.S. (1992): the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dealt with Richard Nixon’s right to compensation for his presidential papers.
“The redacted affidavit was released, and the relevant part of the affidavit — quoting the DOJ’s letter to Trump about securing the materials — is part of what was unsealed. Have you read the unsealed portions of the affidavit, or are you too lazy to do that too?”
Again you are appealing to authority. We don’t have all the original data including the unredacted warrant and affidavit.
Your poor response is nothing more than you again spinning using half-truths. Your insults do not make anything you say correct, but they do reveal that your arguments are crumbling.
I don’t have to prove all the things you previously got wrong. You created an anonymous identity to prevent people from doing so. Therefore the ball remains in your court though most readers recognize what I said is true.
You have ineffectively ducked everything that disproves your logic, but that is expected from Anonymous the Stupid.
“You appealed to the authority of the judge, not his ruling.”
False.
“ROFL is something four-legged animals do.”
Are you too stupid to understand that “ROFL” is not meant literally? No other species uses it figuratively.
“‘IF the case moves to a higher court, THEN you have zero knowledge of what those judges will determine’
“Neither does the judge, and that is my point.”
No, what you said was “when the case moves to a higher court, the judge’s decision doesn’t matter either.” You do not know that it *will* move to a higher court, much less do you know that the higher court will say that his ruling “doesn’t matter.” IF (not “when”) it moves to a higher court, then they could easily confirm his ruling.
“Nixon v. U.S. (1992): the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dealt with Richard Nixon’s right to compensation for his presidential papers.”
Now that you’ve clarified what case you meant, your original claim was “White House papers have been treated as personal property. Nixon v. the US,” and if you’d bothered to read the DCCA case, you’d know that it was about a law — the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act — that precedes the PRA and was replaced by the PRA. It’s irrelevant to current situation, since the PRA is now law and PRMPA is has not been law for decades. The PRA does *not* provide compensation for taking Presidential Records, as “The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.” Unlike Nixon’s records, which were owned by him but taken under PRMPA, Trump’s presidential records were never owned by Trump; they were always owned by the U.S.
“Again you are appealing to authority.”
I wasn’t. You clearly don’t understand what is and is not an appeal to authority. It’s a fact that Reinhart unsealed part of the affidavit. It’s a fact that the section of the DOJs June 8 letter to Trump’s attorneys about securing the storage room, quoted in the affidavit, was unsealed. It’s a fact that the letter tells them to secure the storage room. It’s a fact that the affidavit addresses 32 C.F.R. Parts 2001 and 2003, which regulate what it means to secure the storage in question. I take it that you still haven’t bothered to read the affidavit.
“We don’t have all the original data including the unredacted warrant and affidavit.”
The warrant and cover sheet were unredacted in their entirety. I doubt you’ve read them either. As for the affidavit, read the parts that HAVE been unsealed.
“Your insults do not make anything you say correct, but they do reveal that your arguments are crumbling.”
That’s rich coming from you, when you insult more than anyone else here.
“I don’t have to prove all the things you previously got wrong.”
Then all you have is unsubstantiated claims.
“You created an anonymous identity to prevent people from doing so.”
Idiot, if YOU previously did so, then you’d simply refer to YOUR previous comments. YOU cannot, because YOU never did so.
>>“You appealed to the authority of the judge, not his ruling.”
>”False.”
Your words were: “The judge disagrees with you” That is an appeal to authority.
“ROFL” is not meant literally?”
That is the image you portray, a four-legged animal rolling on the floor. Soon we will hear you barking or providing some suitable animalistic grunt.
You are not very swift. If the case moves to a higher court, the higher court will prevail. You are making a mockery of debate.
“Now that you’ve clarified what case you meant”
There was no need to clarify. I gave you the case, and we discussed a specific subject. You used a lot of nasty language instead of thinking. If you thought a bit, you would have realized you were looking at the wrong case. You used deflection to complicate a much simpler issue.
Yes, we understand the law preceding the PRA. We also recognize, that historically, presidential records were considered personal property by the Presidents beginning with George Washington. The PRA balanced the needs of former Presidents, history, and the government. These rights under the PRA outweigh those legalities brought forth in the FBI warrant.
The Nixon case recognized Presidential papers as Presidential property protected by due process. The PRA recognizes the rights of the former President to their presidential papers. (You can correct your misinterpretation of what I wrote.)
The former President did not deny the use of those papers to government or history. You will have to evaluate the PRA not based on one sentence but in its entirety. The balancing act of the PRA left many things open, including enforcement and timing. The government had proven access. They did not need to raid the underwear draw of the former President’s wife, taking passports and attorney-client privileged documents. The government also had access to the originals of documents, etc.
ATS, tell us where the PRA states the mechanism of turning over the documents. It doesn’t. Tell us where it provides a deadline. It doesn’t.
The former President is guaranteed access by the PRA. Therefore, we have a potential pulling match between the archivist and the former President, both with rights of possession. This leaves negotiation without criminality of either party.
The warrant was served on the assumption there was unlawful activity, The PRA doesn’t construe the former President’s custody as unlawful.
>>“Again you are appealing to authority.”
>”I wasn’t.”
You were and your fallacious appeal was explained in my prior response. The warrant is the data. The explanatory letter from the DOJ is not.
” I take it that you still haven’t bothered to read the affidavit.”
One cannot rely on your interpretations since you lack credibility.
>“You created an anonymous identity to prevent people from doing so.”
>Idiot, if YOU previously did so, then you’d simply refer to YOUR previous comments. YOU cannot because YOU never did so.”
This is a specific discussion on a legitimate topic. I use my name all over this blog and have used my name in this discussion. Despite your inaccuracies, I CAN refer to my “previous comments” because they are under a name and unique icon. We cannot prove you have written any of them or that they come from one place.
The more you lose, the nastier you become.
It’s a fact, not an appeal to authority that the judge disagrees with you. It’s a fact, not an appeal to authority, that his opinion matters legally and yours does not.
“If the case moves to a higher court, the higher court will prevail.”
Duh, and IF that occurs, then the ruling may be to agree with the lower court, or it may be to overturn the lower court. Notice how you’ve shifted from your original unwarranted assumption “WHEN the case moves to a higher court, the judge’s decision doesn’t matter either.” You do not know that it will be appealed, and IF it is appealed, you do not know how they’ll rule.
“… PRA … PRA … PRA …”
There were 3 crimes alleged for the search, violations of:
* 18 USC 793e — willful retention of NDI docs that Trump was not authorized to have
* 18 USC 1519 — obstruction of a federal investigation
* 18 USC 2071 — concealment or removal of government records
You want to distract with the PRA. Play in your rabbit hole by yourself.
“I CAN refer to my “previous comments””
But you haven’t. You are unable to link to a previous comment of yours where you proved what you now assert. Instead, you make excuses, “I don’t have to prove all the things you previously got wrong.”
“The more you lose, the nastier you become.”
You continue to look in the mirror.
“It’s a fact, not an appeal to authority that the judge disagrees with you.”
The disagreement is a fact, but your proof, that you are right because the judge agrees with you is an appeal to authority. If you want to provide the data in the judge’s ruling that would be acceptable.
“It’s a fact, not an appeal to authority, that his opinion matters legally and yours does not.
It is a fact that his opinion matters, even if he has been bought or is wrong. No one disputes that.
“If the case moves to a higher court, the higher court will prevail.”
“Duh”
Now you are making sense. Perhaps more than in any reply before. It accurately describes your predicament.
“, and IF that occurs, then the ruling may be to agree with the lower court, or it may be to overturn the lower court. Notice how you’ve shifted from your original unwarranted assumption “WHEN the case moves to a higher court, the judge’s decision doesn’t matter either.” You do not know that it will be appealed, and IF it is appealed, you do not know how they’ll rule.”
That is reasonably correct for this discussion, but that means things are fluid and what you said regarding these matters is fluid also.
“… PRA … PRA … PRA …”
There were 3 crimes alleged for the search, violations of:
* 18 USC 793e — willful retention of NDI docs that Trump was not authorized to have
* 18 USC 1519 — obstruction of a federal investigation
* 18 USC 2071 — concealment or removal of government records”
None of them pertain to the criminal issues of a former President who has taken no documents since Biden’s inauguration. Trump was authorized to have documents, and declassify them at will. Whether the documents were classified or not doesn’t matter.
You will focus on 2071. Did Trump take the documents out after Biden was in office? No. You can dump 2071.
“You want to distract with the PRA. Play in your rabbit hole by yourself.”
The PRA doesn’t provide the archivist the ability to criminalize any upset the archivist might feel. The archivist has to work things out with the former President. The PRA provides no mechanism or timeline for turning over documents desired by the archivist. (Do archivists now carry assault weapons to force compliance to their will?)
“I CAN refer to my “previous comments”
You referred to your insults but have had to backtrack on everything else. My ten points have not changed. You had to dig up a new case when you assumed the case I quoted was a different one. That case remains in my argument.
“Instead, you make excuses, “I don’t have to prove all the things you previously got wrong.”
That is true, but not an excuse. I am dealing with 10 points. I will defend every one of them as you withdraw to your cave.
>>“The more you lose, the nastier you become.”
>”You continue to look in the mirror.”
Now you are demonstrating how hapless you are. I doubt I will be hearing from you again today, so good night Anonymous the Stupid, and see if you can’t dream up more stupid remarks for tomorrow.
Your deviousness is revealed when you quoted me. You quoted me saying: “you do not [change].”
However, the actual quote was: “Anonymous the Stupid, things change but you do not.”
You’re an idiot. In quotations, brackets mean that the bracketed text is not in the original quote. Also, “things change but you do not” implies “you do not [change].”
“You’re an idiot. In quotations, brackets mean that the bracketed text is not in the original quote.”
We are not talking about grammar here. We are talking about your deception. When quoting, you have to prevent distorting the meaning. Distortion leads to deception, and that is what you provide.
CNN did something similar by changing the background for Biden’s speech. It was blood red, and they turned it pink to lessen the damage of the combination of red blood and the speech.
“As I’ve pointed out numerous times”
Yes, you constantly point out things that are wrong.
Have you learned nothing by being wrong about:
The law,
Trump
Reality
Democrats
The media
Over the past decade ?
“none of the 3 alleged crimes hinges on whether the documents were classified.”
None hinge on whether they were MARKED classified. This was true in the Clinton case too.
Further All alleged crimes require an ACT – not possession.
For most people, they can not possess classified material outside of government control without an ACT that violates the law. But that is NOT true of presidents.
“Trump clearly violated the PRA”
Nope. Please read ABJ’s decision – as well as its precursors.
The best current law is the president gets to decide what is a government record and what is a personal.
You can disagree, Courts can change that, but it is reasonable for Trump to rely on that.
And unreasable for DOJ to act otherwise without going to court to challenge that.
“Do you understand that even if they were declassified, any documents still “bearing classification markings” were supposed to be turned over? ”
So ? If DOJ thought the subpeona was not being complied with they can seek a court order to enforce it.
“They are not Trump’s personal property.”
The vast majority of what was in the receipt was indisputably personal property.
“They are the government’s property.” That remains disputed and the current state of the law favors Trump.
No, none of the cited laws hinge on whether the documents the government sought ARE classified. In fact, 18 USC 793 became law before the classification system was established.
“All alleged crimes require an ACT – not possession.”
Not according to law. 793(e): “(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it ….” shall be fined and/or imprisoned. And the other 2 crimes involve acts: obstruction, and concealment or removal.
“Please read ABJ’s decision ”
I’ve read it, and it doesn’t apply, not least because you’re referring to dicta from a district court that has zero precedential effect — not on other courts in the DC District and not on a court in FL.
“If DOJ thought the subpeona was not being complied with they can seek a court order to enforce it.”
They could. They could also seek a search warrant. They chose the latter, and a court agreed to grant it.
“The vast majority of what was in the receipt was indisputably personal property.”
I wasn’t referring to that subset, as should be absolutely clear to anyone who can read/understand English: “even if they were declassified, any documents still “bearing classification markings” were supposed to be turned over[.] They are not Trump’s personal property. They are the government’s property.” The standard rule in English is that a pronoun like “they” refers back to the most recent noun that matches in number and gender.
“the current state of the law favors Trump.”
It doesn’t.
“none of the cited laws hinge on whether the documents the government sought ARE classified.”
BZT wrong.
“In fact, 18 USC 793 became law before the classification system was established.”
Incorrect.
It is correct to say that the espionage act predates the more modern formal system of marking documents, and the current set of specific markings and the way classified documents are traced.
It is incorrect to say there was no distinction between information that was government secrets – classified and information that was not.
This is a stupid argument. Obama’s EO – was within the past decade. Are you arguing that no classification existed before that ?
Or is it before Bushes EO ?
Or is it before Clinton’s ?
Or Before …..
The current scheme evolved over time.
That is not the same as your ludicrous claim that in the past none existed.
George Washington engaged in secret communications
And intercepted secret communications with the British.
before the Declaration of Independence,
The Obama EO is the current executive directions regarding the who, the what, and the how of government secrets.
You are correct that it is after the law.
You are incorrect that it does not create the current distinctions that the law applies to.
The 5th amendment was ratified on Dec 15. 1791.
The decision requiring people interogated by police to be informed of their “miranda rights” did not occur until 1963.
Your 5th amendment rights existed before 1963. But the specific process and criteria that we currently use did not.
A later court can expand or contract that, but until that occurs, Miranda defines what constitutes your 5th amendment rights in the context of a police interogation.
18 US 793 (e)
(e)Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
READ THE WHOLE THING.
Posession is a SINGLE Element, it is ALONE far from sufficient.
There is no Crime of mere possession.
To violate 18 US 793(e) you must meet EACH of the following
Not be authorized – Ex-Presidents are authorized – See Obama’s EO
AND Possess
AND either:
Communicateo someone not entitled to recieve it
OR Refuse to return to someone entitled to receive it.
You do not have any of the elements.
Again the Espionage act does not criminalize mere possession
Every single section requires an ACT.
I did read the whole thing.
18 US 793 has the following form:
(a) [text A]; or
(b) [text B]; or
(c) [text C]; or
(d) [text D]; or
(e) [text E]; or
(f) [text F] —
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(g) [text G]
(h) [text H]
If any one of (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) occurs, then the person guilty of one or more of those sections “Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
The alleged crime is (e), and you’ve quoted that. To be guilty of (e), the person:
1) must “hav[e] unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any” item in the list, AND either
2a) “willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or”
2b) “willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.”
I am adding this numbering for clarity of reference below and also to make clear the structure: 1 AND (2a OR 2b).
The alleged crime is that Trump was in unauthorized possession of NDI that was subpoenaed but not turned over, AND he willfully retained them / failed to deliver them when subpoenaed for them. Whether the DOJ will be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt is unknown at this time. I am not responsible for proving it. The DOJ will be responsible for that IF it indicts him.
“You keep trying to read the law as a sequence of OR’s. It is Not, it is AND’s”
Actually, it’s a mixture, as is hopefully clear from the above.
“With respect to DOJ/FBI – ABJ’s ruling – and those that hers is based on are ALL that exists.”
BS. Nixon v GSA exists, it SCOTUS precedent, and was already cited in at least one motion before Judge Cannon. ABJ’s ruling was not.
“Courts can reject ABJ – the DOJ/FBI can not do so unilaterally without going to court”
BS. Dicta aren’t binding on the DOJ. The sole RULING from ABJ was to dismiss the case. It has no bearing on the DOJ here at all.
“no court decision is EVER “binding”.”
More BS. SCOTUS rulings are binding on lower courts unless SCOTUS itself overturns them.
I’m not even going to bother responding to the rest. This is just more over your ever-ballooning word vomits. You’re unwilling to edit your comments because no one is paying you to do that. I’m unwilling to wade through all of your word vomits because no one is paying me to do that.
You are tediously wrong. You keep trying to beat an obviously dead horse.
Absolutely each lettered section of 18 US 793 is an OR,
Each specifies an independent crime – most are “lessor included offenses”
I.e. Violating (a) probably violates some of (b-f).
But within each section is a list of the ELEMENTS of each of those crimes.
Except where explicitly identified otherwise those elements are AND, not OR.
There is no crime solely of posession of classified materials.
Even “unauthorized possession” – which is NOT applicable, is not ALONE a crime.
It is ONE element of several crimes.
But the requirement that posession must be unauthorized defeats every single 18 793 claim against Trump.
As President Trump was authorized to posses any classified material he wanted.
He was free to take it to the lincoln bedroom, or Mar-A-Lago.
As Ex-President he remains authorized to continue to posess anything he currently possesses
until and unless the current president rescinds that authorization.
In theory Biden could “secretly” deauthorize or reclassify anything in Trump’s posession.
But that would not make Trump’s posession CRIMINALLY “unauthorized” until he was explicitly made aware of that.
To my knowledge while Biden has explicitly withdrawn Trump claims of executive priviledge – which was a mistake but one Biden is free to make. There is todate no evidence that Biden has reclassified anything Trump declassified, nor rescinded Trump’s exp-presidential security clearance – which is EVERYHTHING without a need to know.
It has been reported – though I do not know that it is true, that Biden is not giving Trump access to the PDB which is traditionally shared with Ex-Presidents.
So you can not get to unauthorized – which is a requirement.
But further the section you cite requires WILLFUL refusal to return UNAUTHORZED material.
You can not have Willful without unauthorized, and you can not have willful without the knowledge that you are unauthorized.
Trump has claimed that he declassified this material. That eliminates both wilful and unauthorized.
You also do not have Wilfull, because Trump cooperated from the start with every effort to search MAL – even ones he was not required to.
It appears that you are atleast partly arguing exactly the same thing as I am – except that, You claim ALL of the requirements of 18 US 793 have been met, while NONE of them are met.
I am going to try to address this bit by bit.
Are you claiming that Trump had “unauthorized posession” ? Or Unauthorized control ?
Which ? Or are you trying to claim that you past that clause as just “control”, not “unauthorized control” ?
Regardless, mere possession is not an element.
Unauthorized possession is.
Presidents are entitled to possesion of any classified documents they wish.
And per Obama’s EO Ex-President retain all classified access they had as president, unless revoked by the current president.
Do you have a presidential order or directive that rescinds Trump’s clearances ? If not he remains authorized.
I would separtely note that it is going to be a near impossible case to make at law that authorized possession can passively become unauthorized possession. i.e. If Trump legally came into possession of classified material at MAL that possession does not become a crime merely by the passage of time or events outside Trump’s control.
Next a WILLFUL refusal – requires:
That the documents are classified,
That Trump knows they are classified,
That Trump’s possession is unauthorized
That Trump knows his possession is unauthorized,
And finally that Trump Openly refuses to cooperate.
ALL of those must be proven.
You can not prove ANY of them.
“Dicta
Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court’s opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. The plural of dictum.”
Not applicable. A judicial holding and the direct legal reasons for it are NOT dicta.
ABJ held that NARA did not have the authority to forceably retrieve Presidential documents and so could not be ordered to. And that what constitutes a personal rather than presidential records was the decision of the president who created the record.
Those were holdings not dicta.
I would also suggest that you refresh your understanding of Dicta
First all your claims regarding whether it is binding or not are with respect to COURTS,
Not law enforcement,
Next, there is actually such a thing as judicially binding dicta.
And even non-binding dicta, is as I stated before something that other courts are required to consider and explain why they do not follow.
Further the 9th circuit has a binding dicta rule, and the 5th circuit has something very close, as do several states.
The only holding in Nixon Vs. GSA is that the records act of 1974 – not the current PRA passed in 1978 does not violate separation of powers. Every other claim Nixon made was unaddressed because no regulations had yet been drafted.
Whether Nixon VS GSA has bearing on the 1978 PRA would depend on the provisions of the 1978 PRA.
Though I am not sure that even if it was found relevant that would have the slightest bearing on any of this.
“More BS. SCOTUS rulings are binding on lower courts unless SCOTUS itself overturns them.”
So in your world no court has ever ignored supreme court rulings ?
More narrowly no court has ever ignored supreme court ruling and ultimately had SCOTUS uphold their decision ?
The former is trivial to find, Cases from NY and CA come to the supreme court all the time that have defied prior scotus decisions.
Even Dobb’s clearly was at odds with Roe/Casey.
The later might be harder, but not impossible.
Regardless, my point which you completely ignore is that NO Court decision is Binary in its aplication to future court decisions.
Your refusal to accept that is irrational.
You keep trying to read the law as a sequence of OR’s.
It is Not, it is AND’s
Willfully retain is not the same as mere possession.
It requires refusing a legitimate demand to return AND not being authorized.
I should not have to explain these things to you.
All of this was debated ad Nausem with Clinton.
““Please read ABJ’s decision ”
I’ve read it, and it doesn’t apply,”
Of course it does.
You are correct that it is only guidance to other districts – but even their it still APPLY’s.
You constantly try to distinguish binding from apply.
Precedent is not binding.Courts ignore precedent all the time.
Precedent does apply – strongly.
We expect that courts will follow it absent very good reason.
But all of the above is relative to the courts
NOT DOJ/FBI
With respect to DOJ/FBI – ABJ’s ruling – and those that hers is based on are ALL that exists.
They are not “guidance”, they are the state of the law.
Courts can reject ABJ – the DOJ/FBI can not do so unilaterally without going to court.
“not least because you’re referring to dicta from a district court that has zero precedential effect — not on other courts in the DC District and not on a court in FL.”
You keep pretending all this is binary, and that all of it is only about courts.
Roe was not binding on SCOTUS – no court decision is EVER “binding”.
At the same time no decision of other courts has ZERO meaning.
Next you are talking about courts.
DOJ/FBI are not courts.
Finally, you can disagree with ABJ’s decision. No one is arguing that it is “final” – nothing is “final” – though a SCOTUS decision is close. But it still remains the state of the law.
All ex-presidents are allowed to rely on it in making decisions – until it is overruled.
Absolutely an FL court could decide otherwise. But you are not permitted to assume they will.
Nor can you claim there is a duty imposed on ex-presidents by the law, that the only existing court decision says does not exist.
If an FL court ordered Trump to turn over material that Trump deemed personal to NARA, that would become the law in FL – When that ruling was issued – NOT before. It would not be retroactive.
The FL court can say ABJ was wrong and in the FL circuit from this day forth this is the law.
But they can not say “Amd Trump knew better and is retro-actively bound by our current decision”.
This is all part of what has been wrong with this whole thing from the start.
Trump has asserted these documents are his, he has asserted they are not classified.
These are BOTH legal arguments.
DOJ/FBI is required to challenge those claims in court – NOW, not assume those are false and ignore them.
That is one of the reasons the raid was unconstitutional.
I would note that this keeps getting worse for NARA/DOJ/FBI/WH
It is now OBVIOUS that nearly all of what DOJ/FBI took was PERSONAL – ie. not classified, and not actual US government property by any defintion.
It is messes like this that occur when instead of addressing disputes in court, you resort to Force.
NARA is not a criminal law. You can not get a search warrant based on it.
But if you win the legal argument – you can get a court order.
But that is not what DOJ/FBI/NARA/WH did.
They jumped straight to “Nacht und Nebel”
““The vast majority of what was in the receipt was indisputably personal property.”
I wasn’t referring to that subset,”
Does not matter.
That fact alone undermines the DOJ/FBI’s judgement and claims.
We are supposed to beleive that the rest of what they took was legitimate when they admit that most of what they took they OBVIOUSLY should not have ?
” as should be absolutely clear to anyone who can read/understand English: “even if they were declassified, any documents still “bearing classification markings” were supposed to be turned over”
Nope, pretty much the opposite is true.
Declassified documents are pretty much not protected at all. There is no possible crime in having them or doing anything with them. DOJ/FBI can not issue a warrant to recover declassified or unclassified documents.
MAYBE they can go to court to get them.
And even if these documents were the only originals of documents that were inarguably us government property – if they are not classified – Trump is at the very least allowed to copy them and give them to anyone he wants.
One of the huge problems that NARA/DOJ/FBI/WH have here is that it is absolutely totally completely illegitimate – illegal to use the DOJ/FBI and the criminal courts to HIDE declassified documents that embarras them from the public (or anyone).
You keep framing this as a fight between Trump and NARA over ownership.
But even if NARA “won” that fight, so long as the documents are not classified. Trump is free to copy them and publish them in the NYPOST.
And that is really what this appears to be all about.
It appears increasingly likely that the actual purpose of the Government’s conduct is not to retrieve government documents. But to prevent Trump from making any of them public.
No one should Care if Trump has a collection of government documents – even classified ones at MAL under lock and key that he goes down and reads every night.
Trump’s posession of these documents does no harm to anyone. The espionage act does apply to Trump – but only if he ACTS to reveal ACTUALLY classified information. And all claims of that have fallen flat.
Trump could turn all these documents over to NARA and send John Solomon and Kash PAtel into NARA with a 10,000 page per minute copier and copy them all and make them public – so long as they were not actually classified.
What appears increasingly likely as this moves forward is that DOJ/FBI/NARA/WH are all seeking to get a hold of Trump’s copies of documents that he declassified so that they can be RECLASSIFIED and Trump can not make them public. And they wanted to do this quietly, But Trump thwarted that.
“They are not Trump’s personal property. They are the government’s property.”
Not according to ABJ – and that is the current state of the law.
You can claim that is not binding. Even SCOTUS decisions are not binding in the absolute sense you are trying to use.
But you keep trying to argue we can pretend that the only legal decisions on this issue do not exist.
“the current state of the law favors Trump.”
Still.
No one doubts that DOJ could get a conviction from a DC jury.
There is no possibility of getting a non-partisan Jury in DC. And only a slightly better one of getting a non-partisan judge.
But it is not likely this would get to a jury. There are far too many legal challenges that would take place before A jury is selected, And of about a half a dozen issues Trump only has to win one. And most if not all are winners.
Further it is unlikely this will proceed quickly and come Jan 2023, it is near certain Republicans are going to be doing a deep dive on Garland, Wray, and Biden.
This is far more dangerous for them that Trump.
If as seems highly likely – the “classified material” is the Collusion Delusion stuff Trump declassifed,
It is impeachments all arround. Worse still if it actually mentions, Biden or any of those at the FBI involved – it only gets worse.
This stinks to h311 like an attempt to coverup Obama Admin Malfeasance at the start of the Collusion Delusion.
For anyone interested, here’s a transcript from Thursday’s hearing: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22274704-trumphearingtranscript
And here’s an unsealed government application to the DC Circuit to disclose aspects of the grand jury investigation after Trump’s lawyers introduced the grand jury subpoena in their filing last week — both the application and the motion to unseal the application were approved by the DC Circuit:
https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/22gj37%20Emergency%20Application%20for%20Order.pdf
OT: ‘Uncle Tom II’ uses neglected cell phone video to expose violent side of BLM media ignored
Documentary connects activist group to a Marxist ideology the filmmakers say does far more harm than good for black Americans.
Malone’s sequel, available now, digs deeper into the black American experience. While the first film featured profiles of black conservatives, “Uncle Tom II” excoriates the Black Lives Matter movement. The film connects the social justice group to a Marxist ideology that the filmmakers contend does far more harm than good for black Americans.
“It’s impossible to talk about Marxism without talking about Christianity,” he added, recalling how Karl Marx called religion the “opiate of the masses.”
https://justthenews.com/nation/culture/sununcle-tom-ii-uses-neglected-cell-phone-video-expose-violent-side-blm-media?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Why does the DOJ have to do so much leaking and running to microphones? Isn’t the Law good enough? Public Relations is managed” truth (sorta). Not exactly “objective” truth. Or fair in an age of the quick the MSNBC – no due process – super quick justice
Even conservatives are condemning Trump for illegally having these documents in his possession:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trumps-mar-a-lago-records-were-ethically-indefensible
Other conservatives condemning Trump include Karl Rove and Bill Barr: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6311758185112#sp=show-clips
ATS believes he is right because other people agree with him. How about having the ability to prove yourself right? So far, you engage in all sorts of awful rhetoric where much of it isn’t true. Original research might help you out, but you are too engaged with left-wing research that tells you what to think and when to think it.
We keep returning to the less than secure location of MAL, which isn’t true. Too many wrongfully believe that the codes for the launch of nuclear missiles should reside in Washington so that when at MAL, if those codes are needed, Trump can fly to Washington to retrieve them. What an awful assumption when the response needs action in minutes, not hours. Then again, I wonder how secure Washington is with all the leaks we see on an almost daily basis.
Alan, you are such an intellectual weakling that although you assert “you engage in all sorts of awful rhetoric where much of it isn’t true,” you are unable to prove your assertion true.
“We keep returning to the less than secure location of MAL, which isn’t true.”
It’s been true since noon on Jan. 20, 2021. Mar-a-Lago hasn’t had a SCIF since Trump left office. The DOJ noted this in the partially unsealed affidavit (“On June 8, 2022, DOJ COUNSEL sent FPOTUS COUNSEL 1 a letter, which reiterated that the PREMISES are not authorized to store classified information. … Specifically, the letter stated in relevant part: ‘As I previously indicated to you, Mar-a-Lago does not include a secure location authorized for the storage of classified information. …'”) Trump’s lawyers have not disputed this fact.
You simply have your head in the sand of the sandbox you periodically refer to.
ATS, I note you don’t have the ability to respond in an organized and sensible fashion.
Everything at MAL was declassified, and no nuclear launch codes existed there. The storage compartment was evaluated by the FBI, and Trump complied with their requests meeting the FBI’s security issues.
Trump’s lawyers are not required to prove your case which is flawed from the start. You don’t shoot straight and can’t make a logical argument from start to finish. That is why all your comments sound so foolish.
Classification cover sheets, as you see in the staged photo, are unclassified.
I really don’t understand if this was a mistake or just something they did on purpose. Will see..
ttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11174455/Bill-Barr-insists-Trump-did-NOT-declassify-documents-seized-FBI.html
Bill Barr blasts Trump for taking classified docs, Defends DOJ/FBI for conducting justified search
Oh, no” Bill, say it ain’t so!
Barr is gonna get the Tin Hats sparking with more “Deep State” conspiracies!!! “Barr is one of them!”
I would like to see JT in his next post or column on this topic address Bill Barr’s comments.
Jonathan: People think the FBI/DOJ are just focused on Donald Trump. Trump claims it is a “political witch hunt ” to deprive him of the presidency that was “stolen” from him in 2020. It turns out the FBI can walk and chew gum at the same time–it can focus on other important criminal investigations. Yesterday, FBI agents searched an apartment in Manhattan and an estate in the Hamptons belonging to a sanctioned Russian oligarch, Victor Vekelsberg, a billionaire closely allied with Putin. In April US authorities seized Vekelsberg’s $900 million super yacht. Vekelsberg is the subject of a DOJ investigation into allegations of bank fraud.
Trump has had a long and profitable relationship with the Russian oligarchs. They bought him a yacht and invested heavily in his US properties. They supported him in the 2016 election. Trump, as president, supported and defended Putin. Given this long relationship leads back to the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. The big unanswered Q is what was Trump’s motivation for taking and hoarding top secret docs at his residence? I think it’s because Trump thought he could “monetize” the top secret docs–perhaps selling them to agents of a foreign power that might have an interest in them.
Also yesterday the federal judge in Florida unsealed the inventory list of the material seized by the FBI. The 11-page list is revealing. One box of docs indicates there was an empty folder labeled “CLASSIFIED”. In Box 2 there were 43 empty folders with “CLASSIFIED” banners. This caught my eye. Was there classified material that had been removed? And, and if so, where is that material? If I were Trump would I hide all the “mother load” just at Mar-a-Lago? Knowing the FBI was determined to recover all the material at his residence why would Trump keep everything just at Mar-a-Lago? We know Trump did not fight the FBI subpoena in court. Is it possible Trump expected the search and used it as a diversionary tactic–to give up what he had at Mar-a-Lago while hiding other classified material at other locations? Wild speculation? With Donald Trump anything is possible. If I were the AG Garland I would seriously consider authorizing searches of Trump’s other properties.
You made my day!
While Donald Trump was busy to host “The Apprentice”, in 2009 then President Obama supported Russia’s WTO accession and announced the creation of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state directed the American side, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represented the Russians.
Next year “Skolkovo”, Russians “Silicon Valley” , was founded and Viktor Vekselberg Head of Board. The next month, former President Bill Clinton gave a speech in Moskow, shortly after the Rosatom acquisition of Uranium One was announced.
https://archive.ph/2017.10.07-074338/https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-foundation-state-and-kremlin-connections-1469997195
Charlotte Kingsdale: Glad I could make your day. And I am glad to see you apparently use your own name. Many in this blog hide behind an alias. Now I’m not a big fan of either Bill Clinton or Hillary. But comparing the Clintons to Donald Trump is like comparing apples and oranges. Did Russian oligarchs buy Bill Clinton a yacht? Did Russian oligarchs buy condos in any property owned by the Clintons.
Do the Clintons even owned properties like those of Trump. The Russians invested heavily in Trump’s 2016 campaign because they believed he would be indebted to them and Russian interests. And Trump repaid them and for 4 years defended Putin. And, finally, did Bill Clinton hold onto top secret and other classified material after he left office? Trump did and that’s why he is now in so much legal trouble. This is the part you missed.
Denny, Don’t miss Trump rally in Pennsylvania today! It’s gonna be lit. Not ‘lit’ like Biden’s Nazi-propaganda-inspired-threat-to-democracy-Moloch-Temple of Doom speech. But ‘lit’ like someone who understands what is worth fighting for in this country.
Saturday 7pm ET.
https://www.newsweek.com/watch-donald-trump-pennsylvania-rally-wilkes-barre-1739435
The fascists on the right are like the Nazis in this parody:
You never understood what the word fascist meant in the past and you don’t understand what it means today.
National Socialist: Just like you, they desire big government with lots of power and little individual liberty.
Are you able to get that through your head? No. because you prefer trickery and lying.
You’ve got your head so deep in the sand that you cannot bring yourself to admit that Nazis are right-wing.
That is why you don’t deal with what is being said.
National Socialist: Just like you, they desire big government with lots of power and little individual liberty.
Do you not believe in big government that wields tremendous power? Prove it.
The detailed property inventory that the DOJ filed in this case has been unsealed:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64911367/39/1/trump-v-united-states/
In other Trump news, Pat Cipollone has arrived at the DC District court for another grand jury appearance.
That list includes:
* 48 empty CLASSIFIED document folders
* 42 empty “Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide” folders
Where are those sensitive, potentially missing documents??
That photo is intended to achieve the same purpose as did the “Intelligence” Letter.
It is *not* intended to convey facts, evidence, or the truth. Slimy people never take a firm position on anything.
That photo is intended to convey, to the public, the *impression* (via innuendo) that there is something nefarious going on. In effect: “Well, we didn’t claim that the photo truthfully represents how we found those documents. But if you (the public and the media) wish to draw that conclusion — let your delusional suspicions run wild.”
The photo was not created for the public. It was taken as a routine part of a search to provide a record of the room in which the items were located, what they were comingled with, that some had classified cover sheets while others did not, and what those classified cover sheets identified.
It’s increasingly clear to anyone who wants to see the obvious that the DOJ/FBI are continuing to harrass Trump as much as possible. Is it possible that Trump violated some statute? Sure. But so far, this seems to be another exaggerated “investigation” designed to intimidate the political opponent of the current regime. That this kind of Stalinist tactic continues to happen in America should be of grave concern to everyone. Yet half the country thinks it’s perfectly OK.
What we’ll never know, but is key to the entire frame of this thing is this. How does Trump’s possession of these documents compare to that of other former presidents? Supposedly Obama has 33,000,000 documents which have been withheld from the government. Other presidents also have supposedly classified documents.
And what of the argument that Trump declassified these documents? Then they’d be improperly marked.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven. And I can only imagine that a future, Republican administration could take these precedents to start prosecuting Democrats for similar things. Imagine the uproar had the Trump administration gone after Hillary Clinton. The fact that he didn’t, but the Democrats continue to use the instruments of government to harass Trump tells you all you need to know about who’s a fascist in this country.
I’m utterly disgusted by how this is going, and worse, there seems to be no end in sight. The utter lawlessness of Democrats — from their school boards indoctrinating our youth, to their DAs who never met a rioter or shoplifter they didn’t let off the hook, to their weaponization of the DOJ and FBI — Democrat lawlessness is the biggest threat to America today.
Wake up, folks! This is your country going down the drain.
Kim G
Boston, MA
“Is it possible that Trump violated some statute? Sure.”
The alleged crimes are really serious, not just “some statute.”
“Supposedly Obama has 33,000,000 documents which have been withheld from the government. ”
That’s total BS. NARA has been very clear that Obama turned over those 33M documents to NARA, as required by law. Let me know if you need a link to where they said this.
“what of the argument that Trump declassified these documents?”
He didn’t tell the government this, he hasn’t said it under oath, he hasn’t said it in his legal filings. So as far as I can tell, it’s a lie.
“Imagine the uproar had the Trump administration gone after Hillary Clinton.”
If they had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed a crime, I’d want them to go after her. If they have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed a crime, I want them to go after him. No one should be above the law.
“This is your country going down the drain.”
You think that’s due to Democrats. I think that’s due to Trump and Trumpists.
You apparently haven’t looked at the economy, gas prices, inflation, war, how we are neutering ourselves so that our military power is dwindling, and should it be needed, will be suffering terrible lacks. You haven’t looked at the rioting from the left, the political unrest due to the lack of rule of law, and the unconstitutional actions of the Biden Administration. You also haven’t bothered to look and see the criminality behind the Biden Family.
Let’s see. The FBI/DOJ are harassing trump. False. Trump illegally took highly classified documents to MAL, where security was totally inappropriate for the classification of some documents. And, no trump couldn’t just “declassify” those documents as those classified as “TS/SCI” can be declassified only by the originating agency.
Obama has 33,000 classified documents? Totally made up. All documents were transferred to to the Archives facility in Chicago for cataloging and storage by Achives.
The President is an original authority and can declassify any documents. **But** he has to notify the government that he is doing so, so that the government is able to distinguish between classified and unclassified documents for a range of reasons (e.g., responding to FOIA requests).
“**But** he has to notify the government that he is doing so,”
ATS, where in the law does it dictate the manner or time frame? Where in the law is any punishment dictated?
If a President never tells the government which items he declassified, how does anyone in the government distinguish classified from declassified items? 50 U.S. Code § 3024 says “The Director of National Intelligence shall protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.” How can s/he know what to protect if s/he doesn’t know what’s classified versus declassified? ALL of these documents were supposed to have been turned over to NARA, where the Archivist is required under the PRA to conduct a systematic declassification review program; once again, how can the Archivist do his/her job if s/he doesn’t have a way of distinguishing classified from declassified records? The government’s protection of classified information simply cannot function if the President doesn’t tell the government that he declassified information.
And a reminder that the alleged crimes do not depend on the documents being classified.
“In this article, I focus on a specific aspect related to the national security risks from the disclosure of such documents. I address on its own terms Trump and his allies’ claim that, while president, he issued either a general or standing declassification order that covered these documents. If that is to be the defense on which the former president relies in the court of public opinion or in a court of law, we should understand the national security implications that would flow from such a presidential decision. It should be shocking to the American public and to jurors in a courtroom to hear such a line of defense to allegations of mishandling national defense information. That justifiable shock can come, however, only if people comprehend the grievous harms to national security from any such order. …”
https://www.justsecurity.org/82880/a-damage-assessment-of-trumps-declassification-defense/
ATS, in the end, where in the law does it dictate the manner or time frame? Where in the law is any punishment dictated?
You go everywhere except to the source. The President has the right to declassify anything.
Duh. I already said the President is an original authority and can declassify any documents.
If you said it then you should recognize the BS arguments you have provided.
Now you can ponder the question. In the end, where in the law does it dictate the manner or time frame? Where in the law is any punishment dictated?
The answer to this question would be a lot better than the four other responses I trashed that were totally childish and lacked content. You can’t deal with reality.
You have a choice, deal with answering the pertinent questions or go play in a sandbox.
Once again, the alleged crimes do not depend on the documents being classified.
And as law prof Steve Vladeck notes, it would actually reflect worse on Trump if he had had a standing order to declassify NDI docs : https://web.archive.org/web/20220903105227/https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/09/02/declassified-mar-a-lago-national-security/
Vladek’s argument is “imagine.” That suits your abilities as you have no others for the real world. Unable to manage the questions raised, you dispensed with fact and accepted imagination as your new world of reality.
Vladek then read Trump’s mind and imagined what Trump could be thinking. A stupid argument, but what do we expect from people with TDS? Vladek’s imagination seems to be his problematic mindset that ATS reflects in his own.
Vladek’s hyperbole is ridiculous, yet I understand he is a law professor. Shall we seat him next to today’s Lawrence Tribe, who, in past years, had a valued mind?
Here’s more about Vladeck’s background and accomplishments:
https://fedsoc.org/contributors/stephen-vladeck
https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/stephen-i-vladeck
He understands the legal issues better than you do and has accomplished more than you’ll ever accomplish. But do continue to demonstrate that you have nothing but insults for liberals you disagree with, and that you prefer insult to substantive discussion.
For the umpteenth time: the alleged crimes do not depend on the documents being classified. You have no counter to this. None. So you respond with insults.
I do not doubt Vladek’s accomplishments or Lawrence Tribe’s. However, such accomplishments don’t mean they can’t go down the wrong rabbit hole. You have no accomplishments and are there with them.
I did not insult Vladek. Instead, I listed a few of the problems with his op-ed. There was too much hyperbole, and too much mindreading, and depended on the reader’s imagination. Go ahead and reread what Vladek said, ” But imagine ” and then he went from there.
“For the umpteenth time: the alleged crimes do not depend on the documents being classified. You have no counter to this. None”
Then discuss the alleged crimes instead of linking to an article beyond your understanding. Tell us the crimes (I assume criminal based on your usage.)
“You have no counter to this. None”
That brings us back to the subject this article was supposed to deflect us away from discussing.
More than once, I asked: “Now you can ponder the question. In the end, where in the law does it dictate the manner or time frame? Where in the law is any punishment dictated?”
You never answered, ATS. Instead, you linked and started a different discussion. Are you unable to stay on track?
Why is it that you seem to think that appeals to authority are relevant ?
Or not fallacy ?
For the the umpteenth time – there is no crime if these documents are not currently classified, AND marked classified.
There probably is no crime even if they ARE classified and marked.
Any “legal scholar” claiming otherwise – isn’t.
This is not a difficult question.
First the espionage act is about ACTS, not posession.
Next it requires INTENT, or Negligence or Recklessness.
These are ANDs not OR’s.
So to get a crime you MUST prove Trump ACTED either to obtain these documents illegally or to do something with the documents illegally. If they were moved to MAL while Trump was president – you are SOL. there is no illegal way they can be moved to MAL while Trump was president.
Alternatively you need them to be OBVIOUSLY classified, AND for Trump to be providing them to someone not allowed access to them. Such as the Saudi’s.
You have none of that.
Of course there is a counter – your source is in error – and quite OBVIOUSLY so.
I would further note as a result of Trump’s FL lawsuit
We have more information. DOJ/FBI have provided a much more detailed receipt.
Nearly everything on the receipt is PERSONAL – and obviously so – almost none of it under any understanding of the PRA would be NARA’s or the governments.
Cloths, magazines, photographs – why were any of these seized ? Are FBI agents completely clueless how bad this all looks ?
Why haven’t these been returned ? Do you think the nuclear codes are in Melania’s intimates ?
Oh, and not to forget – 90 Empty classified document jackets – i.e. with no documents in them. Oops.
“Tell us the crimes”
How many times do I have to do that?
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/08/12/trump-calls-for-release-of-warrant-as-controversy-comes-to-a-head-at-mar-a-lago/comment-page-5/#comment-2212862
The next time you need to be reminded of what the alleged crimes are, READ THE WARRANT AND THE COVER SHEET FOR YOURSELF. Stop demanding that others spoon-feed you. You behave like an infant, but that doesn’t make others your nanny.
“How many times do I have to do that?”
You are too far off base. There cannot be espionage charges. As President Trump had complete control of the classification of the documents, there would be no espionage unless he did something like selling secrets to foreign nations.
You couldn’t put the words in your sentences showing that you had to rely on the authority of Steve Vladek, who I recently demonstrated as one of those who had difficulty managing his thoughts. At dinner, I would seat him with today’s Lawrence Tribe, who has completely lost it.
ATS, you can continue to use your imagination rather than fact, but your imagination is not convincing. Moreover, your repetition that you prior comments were not answered before is a lie.
This issue is pretty trivial.
You do not even have to “know” the law to know that these claims are near certain false.
There are very very few crimes that do not require both intent and overt acts.
There is absolutely no law that makes mere possession of government documents – classified or not a crime.
However in many instances posession is EVIDENCE of a crime. It is extremely rare that most people – even ranking government officials can come into posession of classified government documents without a Crime being committed.
Niether Hillary nor anyone at the state department had unilateral defacto declassification authority.
Private posession of anything classified by Hillary REQUIRES the commission of a crime – and likely by Hillary.
But the Clinton case was worse – Worse than Deutch Worse than Berger, worse than pretty much all espionage act violations short of paid spying. Because in addition to illegally aquiring classified documents, Clinton illegally delivered them to others.
In many cases deliberately – as with Sydney Blumenthal, in others recklessly by allowing them to be accessed over the internet.
We STILL do not really know the MAL documents were actually classified.
We only know some were marked – assuming we Trust the FBI not to plant evidence.
which is not out of the question given what we have seen so far.
If they were we do not know how they got there. But unlikely with Clinton the most likely means are all legal.
And finally, there is to date no credible allegation that these documents were at serious risk.
No one was hacking Trump’s servers – they were not their.
or breaking into Trump’s safe or locked closets in the residential portion of MAL.
Does anything think that the Secret Service does such a piss poor job that Chinese agents roam the halls at Trump’s home ?
John,
Once again, you seem not to understand when an appeal to authority is and is not fallacious. Educate yourself: https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoAuthority
“Nearly everything on the receipt is PERSONAL”
And murderers haven’t killed most people. It’s the person they did kill that matters. It’s the documents with classified markings and NDI that does matter here, and that’s dozens of documents amounting to hundreds of pages total.
This will be resolved in court, not by you or me. I don’t much care what you think about it, and I dislike wading through your word vomits, so I often choose not to read them.
“90 Empty classified document jackets – i.e. with no documents in them. Oops.”
Oops indeed, but not in the sense you intend. I’m sure that they’re trying to determine what they are and where they are.
Once again you fail to understand logic
All appeals to authority are fallacious.
If you have a source that claims otherwise – they are selling something other than logic.
My guess is that you are under the delusion that fallacious means the same thing as false.
It merely identifies and invalid form of argument.
All appeals to authority are arguments resting on trust, not truth.
They are persuasive only to the extent that the authorities are trusted.
The politicization of absolutely everything by the left, leaves almost no authority trusted.
We need only to look at the incredibly harmful failures of public health experts regarding covid to understand that trust in authorities is rightly a scarce commodity today.
Regardless, you do not seem to be able to get it through your head that you are unlikely to ever persuade those you oppose using fallacious arguments.
That is how it should be. Those of you on the left – and the authorities you cite are deservedly not trusted.
Here is wikipedia not a right wing source.
“An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument. Some consider that it is used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context, and others consider it to always be a fallacy to cite the views of an authority on the discussed topic as a means of supporting an argument.”
Wikipedia is confuses persuasive with valid. Where all parties trust an authority the appeal may be persuasive.
But it is never logically valid.
A logically valid argument is ALWAYS true. A persuasive argument is not.
John,
I referred you to a peer-reviewed encyclopedia written and reviewed by philosophy Ph.Ds who understand fallacies better than you do. You are willfully ignorant when you claim “All appeals to authority are fallacious.” MANY appeals to authority are NOT fallacious. It is not fallacious to appeal to the authority of someone who has relevant expertise. It is, in fact, necessary to validly appeal to authority at times because we are incapable of learning all the knowledge in the world in order to be able to assess it ourselves. You are incapable of determining for yourself whether Andrew Wiles proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem is a valid proof. You simply do not know enough math. It is not fallacious to turn to the mathematicians who’ve read and understood the proof and determined that the final proof is valid. Similarly for all sorts of other claims. The fallacy is relying on someone’s expertise in X when the claim falls outside of X or relying on a superficial feature to determine expertise (e.g., that someone writes a lot about Y does not in itself guarantee that the person has expertise about Y).
“Here is wikipedia not a right wing source.”
First of all, the IEP is not a “right wing source,” and there’s no reason to assume anything either way about the person who wrote the fallacies entry, Bradley Dowden.
Second, you are ironically appealing to the authority of WP. But WP itself notes that it is not a consistently reliable source of information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia , and there is no reason to assume that the WP editors who edited that sentence have any relevant expertise. Anyone can edit WP. When it comes to fallacies, WP is certainly less reliable than a peer-reviewed encyclopedia written by philosophers. If you read the Talk page for your WP article, you’d also see that there was an internal debate about whether they have a reliable source to back up the claim that “others consider it to always be a fallacy.” Did you bother reading that internal debate? Are you even familiar with WP Talk pages?
“My guess is that you are under the delusion that fallacious means the same thing as false.”
Your guess is mistaken.
Yes, you made ANOTHER appeal to authority.
The rules of logic are not “peer reviewed” they are the results of centuries of LOGIC.
Regardless, I am not debating them. I am ignoring them completely.
YOU keep making fallacious nested appeals to authority.
I do not need to read them to know one of two things is true.
a). They are wrong.
b). Or you are misrepresenting them.
And finally, there is no reason for me to waste time figuring out which is true.
Though the odds favor b).
“It is, in fact, necessary to validly appeal to authority at times because we are incapable of learning all the knowledge in the world in order to be able to assess it ourselves.”
False, you are confusing logic with science.
I am not interested in being told what I do or do not know by someone who does not know what an informal logical fallacy is.
Throughout my life I have mastered any subject I ever cared to learn, and that is an enormous number of topics.
Unlink you I do not waste my time with appeals to my own authority or that of others.
MAKE A VALID ARGUMENT.
Appeals to authority are NOT logically valid EVER.
“It is not fallacious to turn to the mathematicians who’ve read and understood the proof and determined that the final proof is valid. ”
Yes it is.
You seem to think that fallacious is a synonym for wrong.
It is not, it just means it is not a logically valid argument.
Your own example proves that. You can rely on “mathematicians who’ve read and understood the proof”
But they can not.
Every single time you are making an appeal to authority you are TRUSTING, that your authority did NOT.
The very mathematicians you are demanding we trust, are not trust worthy if they did not follow the rules of logic – and in this instance math, and that includes not using fallacious logic – like appeals to authority.
You are clearly what Nasim Taleb calls and IYI – intellectual yet idiot.
You are well educated, yet not even half as smart as you think you are.
I am not selling you wikipedia. Though no anyone can not edit it. It is dominated by the left who obliterate changes they do not like. But it tends to be reliable – certainly as reliable as your “peer reviewed” encyclopedia on issues that are not political – or that left wing nuts have not yet figured out are political.
Regardless, you are wrong – not merely because Wikipedia says you are wrong, but because your own example proves you wrong.
I would further note that mathematics and logic are related – not identical.
Regardless, does Andrew Wiles proof include appeals to authority ?
Of course not, it would be invalid if it did.
I do not care much about WP. It is useful sometimes when it is right.
I have no interest in the behind the scenes debates.
Nor are they relevant.
Galleleo used facts and logic, he FAILED peer review. The dominant science of the time relied on appeals to the authority of established science of the time, clerics, the pope, the bible, and ultimately god.
You are making a stupid argument that is obviously WRONG.
If appeals to authority are logically valid, all you need is an appropriate authority to make a claim, and it is true – even if it is false.
Appeals to authority rely on trust, not logic which is why they are not logically valid.
Trust is a useful shortcut when there is agreement on the trustworthiness of authorities.
Andrew Wiles proof is correct if it is logically and mathematically valid – if it contains an appeal to authority it is not.
And obviously so.
The claim that WP was not a right wing source was sarcasm. It was not a statement about IEP.
Again logic eludes you.
I am not interested at all in IEP. Either you can make a valid argument – one without fallacies, like appeals to authority.
Or I will point out your use of fallaicies and ignore your conclusions because they are not logically valid.
Just as your revered Mathematicians would if Mr. Weis’s proof used logical fallacies or mathematical errors.
My Trust in their conclusions about Mr. Weis’s proof REQUIRES that they NOT Trust Mr. Weis but actually verify his work – and assure it does not contain fallacious reasoning.
I do not care about IEP – if they are actually as good as you claim, then you do not understand what they are saying and it is not worth my time to sort through your mental errors,
And if they actually say what you claim – they are not trustworthy.
My guess is the former.
Either way it is irrelevant. Appeals to authority are invalid arguments.
Even appeals to appropriate authorities are fallacious. This is because it is not the person that makes a claim true, it is the evidence and arguments. Einstein did not make space and time relative. Rather, he discovered it. It is the evidence he presented that supports claims for the relativity of space and time, not his authority.
One of the things I greatly dislike about trying to have a discussion with you, John, is that you regularly respond to a single comment with multiple responses, so that the only way to respond is either to ignore the majority of what you write or to join you in an ever-ballooning exchange.
That I ignore the majority of what you write does not mean there are no errors in what I ignore, it simply means that I detest your ever-ballooning word vomits. You’ve said before that you’re not paid to edit your comments. Presumably true (I doubt that any commenter here is paid for any reason). And I am not paid to respond to your comments or correct your mistakes.
You misunderstand what is/isn’t a fallacious appeal to authority, you are attributing beliefs to me that aren’t mine, and I simply do not want to invest the time in trying to resolve this with you.
“One of the things I greatly dislike about trying to have a discussion with you, John, is that you regularly respond to a single comment with multiple responses, so that the only way to respond is either to ignore the majority of what you write or to join you in an ever-ballooning exchange.”
One of the things about having a discussion is that neither side gets to make the rules.
Regardless, if you want neither long replies, nor multiple replies – make fewer errors.
“That I ignore the majority of what you write”
Your choice
“does not mean there are no errors in what I ignore”
Nor does it mean there are.
This is typical of the left – you are making a claim that there are errors in what you ignore.
But never bothering to defend the claim.
You are mildly defaming me, but never bothering to be specific enough to be held accountable.
Those of you on the left do this all the time.
We got a boat load of it in Biden’s Reischstadt speech in Philadelphia.
All kinds of claims with no effort to support any of them.
“it simply means that I detest your ever-ballooning word vomits.”
ad hominem is still not argument.
“You’ve said before that you’re not paid to edit your comments. Presumably true (I doubt that any commenter here is paid for any reason). And I am not paid to respond to your comments or correct your mistakes.”
Correct, but ethics, morality and integrity require all of us to prove it when we defame others.
And valid argument is more than naked unsupported assertions
We are not obligated to support every assertion we make.
But failure to do so when challenged undermines credibility.
But then you post as anonymous, so you have no credibility to begin with.
“You misunderstand what is/isn’t a fallacious appeal to authority,”
Nope, this argument is over. Your own example disproved your claim.
Mr. Weis’s proof is not valid because other experts say it is. If it is valid it is because it has no mathematical or logical errors. We trust experts ONLY to the extent that they have been right. Ultimately logic – and mathematics is not about trust. It is about proof. Something it not tru because we trust those involved. It is true because it has been proven true.
Anything less makes Galleleo wrong.
” you are attributing beliefs to me that aren’t mine”
I have no idea what those might be.
What part of my discussions with you is about something other than claims you have made ?
“and I simply do not want to invest the time in trying to resolve this with you.”
That is supposed to go without saying.
You accuse me of being verbose, but you are constantly making assertions such as these that are unnecessary,
while fallaciously engaging in proof by assertion.
It is possible that if you put in more time you would prevail.
It is not likely.
Regardless, you can choose to reply or not, to debate or not, to engage in fallacy or not.
But you can not “resolve” anything by fallacy.
“The FBI/DOJ are harassing trump. False.”
You must be living under a rock.
The Praetorian guard within the FBI already have a well-documented track record of injecting themselves into the political process. Remember “insurance policies?” Putting the screws to Twitter and Facebook?
This writer wonders whether Judge Cannon may be irked at the government’s arrangement of the documents (“staged”) in the photo given her. Is it a good idea to give a federal judge evidence tainted with a bunch of Vance Packard hidden persuaders? What if she sees that as a lack of candor?
The DOJ and FBI can go to prison, where they belong, for matters like this. There’s at least a dozen probably two dozen categories of the same note ready for prosecution right now. They’re a joke, their raid is a joke, their claim of a crime is a joke, and no one with a minimal look at the recent history of these matters believes a word of it. We need to put them in prison where they belong.
They are afraid a special master will find the classified that to a news article and isnt classified after all. Kind of like Bush at the summitt…NATO summitt. And all that. Open skies.
Their problem is…..the photo shows 2018….exactly what pole talk about.. And his insurance policy?. ..But it’s worse the son blacked out the phone numbers of their attorneys….like that is classified. When it’s not ckassified. And trumps team got past the court to publish the same numbers they tried to redact. As classified. So it’s like how much more are they calling “confidential” when it isnt? And how far can we trust t hem? They are going to have to reclassify it….for trust alone. I don’t trust them calling their mere attorneys phone number “confidential’…..what gives! If that’s their threshold trump deserves a special master. … In the face of things.
But they rigged it….they specifically sought a magistrate….to defy “Standing” …they played this out…..just to later say “no SaMsung’s which will backfire because if ppl don’t have stAnding as to their own home….what is the 4th good for? It’s alleged and planned out by them ….But we the ppl know their game is unamerican…And we have things in place. Already we have stopped giving them our kids….And they can’t meet recruiting goals….why should the deplorable be 15 % of the pop supplying 59% of the troops? We are done. Any queastions?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbnNllEaUAU4lBF?format=jpg&name=small
Red is a very symbolic color. What are we to think of? The picture doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy.
As Ann Barkhart said , paraphrasing, YOU have Nothing , No USC, unless you are willing to stand up & Defend It.
Ph JB Commie/Nazis!!!!!
only WE THE PEOPLE will save the people 1080p HD HD 1080p
Dec 18, 2021
What in the ever lovin’ fresh hell was that speech Biden just gave in front of Independence Hall? I have never felt more afraid to be a citizen in my own country — or sorry, a MAGA Republican fascist, in my own country.
And as Joel Pollak said, “The man shouting “f*ck Joe Biden” during the president’s speech is a true patriot.”
It sounded like Biden’s version of a Trump rally. Remember when everyone on the left decried Trump’s populism? Well, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Trump called the fake news media the enemy of the people. Trump attacked his political opponents. Trump attacked the powers-that-be.
Joe Biden just punched down and called tens of millions of voters lawless, constitution-hating, dangerous, violent, bigoted, backwards, ‘fascists.’ Biden stood there as president and angrily declared that patriotic, God loving, constitution loving, MAGA voters are “enemies of the state,” and the equivalent of disgusting vermin.
Worse their governors fully have fully have t 15s. So where is this going for the soul of america? Already been cut re suit enough. Did he really want to take on governors….who have f 15? Asking for friend.
Another “Deplorables” moment for the Dems. This won’t wear well for them.
‘Declaring the opposition party a threat to the republic is just what you do before you outlaw it and jail its leader. Rhetorically, that’s the direction Joe Biden’s speech was pointing. And if there’s one thing history teaches us, it’s that proscriptions are always effective.’
Guess who’s gonna be indicted soon?
Most of the comments from people who seem to believe this is a binary and either leaders and significant elements fbi/doj are corrupt OR trump is incompetent.
Both can be true and anyone casually observing the last dozen years or so would correctly believe that both being true is the best supported position.
This is also not a partisan thing, both parties are hostile to trump and want him gone, the republicans just have to do it more quietly these days, but this is firmly a “forces of THE WAY THINGS ARE vs forces of DISRUPTION.”
But the important part is that, although trump is the target, the double standard is the true horror. I know of not a single person anywhere on the political spectrum who believes trump is being held to the same standard as other powerful, unaccountable people, much less the standards other past presidents are held to.
What has been clearly visible, the corruption and double standard, but still implicit for a very long time has become more and more explicit as the powerful have fought to keep trump from disrupting their very profitable game.
I think the power targeting trump will not be happy with the results of their efforts though based on how things have progressed since 2016 but along those same lines, they must continue. Power went all-in against Trump before he was elected to anything and they remain pot-committed. It is a trend that bodes well for trump and poorly for power.
But let’s be clear, the straw man of EITHER powerful institutions within the government have been corrupted and are used for political ends, OR that Trump is an incompetent buffoon who became president because most of America would prefer a buffoon who isn’t smart enough to be in on the scam, is false.
Both seem likely to be true.
Given DoJ actions,, there is consensus [1-2] that the former President will be indicted and convicted in DC court.
What GOP leadership underestimates is Trump’s connection to VOTERs. As crazy as it sounds, #45 establish politics Liz Cheney is talking about. And if you see that the majority of American’s feel that the country headed in wrong direction, DoJ is politicized, and they don’t trust mainstream media,
Trump is on spot on hot button topics. Nobody should be as naive that GOPs muddling through is done because they don’t know how to run an agenda. They will blame Trump after they missed a huge opportunity to flip House & Senate (as they did after losing both GA senate seats). But lost is lost and if Kevin/Mitch back candidates are more electable, I doubt..
For those of us who see our country riding on the wrong track, not very appealing times!.
[1] https://nypost.com/2022/08/31/how-the-doj-have-built-a-case-against-trump-for-obstruction/
[2] https://www.judgenap.com/why-donald-trump-will-soon-be-indicted/
Trump’s connection to voters? The majority of American voters opposed Trump in 2016 and 2020 by an even larger margin. Polls show that Biden would beat Trump again if the election were held again now.
“POWER TO DECLARE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE ACTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL”
The judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, MUST fulfill its sworn oath to VIGOROUSLY conduct JUDICIAL REVIEW in support of the clear and obvious, meaning and intent of the literal words of the English language in the CONSERVATIVE U.S. Constitution.
___________________________________________________________________
Marbury vs. Madison
The U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review—the power of the federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional. The unanimous opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall.
– Library of Congress
_________________
Judicial Review in the United States
The doctrine of judicial review holds that the courts are vested with the authority to determine the legitimacy of the acts of the executive and the legislative branches of government. The State as well as Federal courts are bound to render decisions according to the principles of the Federal Constitution. The executive and legislative branches of government are also obligated to perform their duties with serious attention to constitutional principles. Still, where any actions by the executive or legislative branches are challenged in the courts, the judicial branch holds the ultimate authority in determining what is constitutional.
– DOJ
Let’s Get This Party Started!
The Left has infiltrated government three letter agencies, weaponizing the alphabet soup against conservatives. In a way, it doesn’t really matter who wins the White House if the Left controls the FBI, NSA, IRS, NSA, EPA, etc. Look at how much damage Democrat activists did to Trump’s presidency through the FBI, pushing the Russia hoax, and spying upon Trump’s campaign and administration.
Honestly, Watergate is rather tame by comparison.
How in the world do you rein back the Democrat activism in government agencies like the FBI? It’s the full power of the government pointed at private citizens, based on politics. Frightening stuff.
Start by pointing out the obvious……that reacted numbers though “Clasified” …why else do the do Bing the law as “do it
As ” claified’? They just shit in their is. Bed. Thing is their attorney numbers re not clasified…..so their redactions are on the face suspect. …totally uspect!