“We’re Here to Help”: The Justice Department Makes The Case . . . for a Congressional Investigation

Below is my column in the New York Post on the Wall Street Journal report that the Justice Department declined an offer to conduct the searches for the Biden classified documents after the discovery on Nov. 2. There is a new report this morning that Justice Department officials did go to the residence in Delaware to collect the documents. That in itself is not surprising since the transport of classified documents triggers its own security protocols. It generally required a certified courier or someone else with authority to transport such documents. The question is whether the officials were present for the search. There is no investigatory reason why such facts remain the subject of speculation and leaks. The Justice Department can simply state that the White House is not prevented from giving a full account of what transpired in each of these searches.

Here is the column:

Ronald Reagan once joked that “the most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” It appears, however, that this is no joke when it comes to the Biden investigation into unlawful possession of classified material.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Justice Department was given the opportunity to conduct the search for classified material in the Biden office and residences, but declined to do so. Instead, it allow uncleared and unnamed private counsel to search for classified material after the discovery of the highly classified documents in the Penn Biden Center office. It was a decision that could benefit Biden greatly, but at a considerable cost to the department itself.

If true, the decision raises additional questions over the independence of top law enforcement personnel. This follows a litany of controversies involving both Donald Trump and Biden where the FBI and DOJ have been accused of political bias and unequal treatment. While the FBI recently denounced critics as “conspiracy theorists,” the record of inexplicable decisions continues to grow by the day.

There is no plausible reason why, given the chance, the Justice Department would not want to conduct a national security search itself. After Nov. 2, the Justice Department was aware that material at the top secret or higher levels was discovered in a closet in the Penn Biden Center. It was also aware that the material may have been moved over the course of six years and that other material could be in other unsecured locations. Nevertheless, it reportedly opted to allow uncleared attorneys to search for additional classified material under a type of “look but please don’t read” edict.

As someone who has worked with classified evidence at the TS/SCI level since the Reagan administration, the decision is breathtaking. It effectively replaced well-established national security protocols with an honor system to be followed by persons unknown.

The decision undermines the credibility of the Justice Department in both the Biden and Trump investigations. The department is threatening criminal charges over the mishandling of classified material but opted for a grossly negligent approach itself in the search for additional classified documents. It just rolled the dice and lost. Additional documents were found by the uncleared lawyers. However, the Justice Department continued to defer to Biden’s counsel like a mere pedestrian at a potential crime scene.

At Mar-a-Lago, the FBI also allowed documents to be gathered and secured by staff as negotiations continued over their return. However, while many of us have criticized the possession of the documents, Trump was contesting the claim that the documents were classified and that he was not allowed to possess them.

The Trump case has grown more difficult not only due to the alleged conduct of Biden but now of the Justice Department itself. It is not clear that Trump ever offered to allow the FBI to conduct its own search of the entire residence. (According to Trump staff, the FBI was given access to documents in the storage room.) If so, it would have been equally negligent in refusing the opportunity. Ultimately, the FBI used a warrant to search the residence and seize not just classified material but a huge amount of documents found with the classified material. It also took pictures of what was found during the search.

By allowing the Biden lawyers to conduct the two months of searches, the DOJ minimized the threat to the president in a number of ways.

First, there were no photographs of the discoveries or where these documents were found. While the FBI was accused of staging a photo to embarrass Trump, it guaranteed that Biden would not face any photos at all.

Second, it guaranteed that there would be no independent official record of the discoveries. One of the key questions was whether classified markings or the obvious color-bordered folders were apparent at these locations in the closet, the garage, or the library. We now must rely on Biden’s own counsel to answer such questions of whether documents were removed from classification folders or mixed with other documents. Indeed, since these private lawyers were used, a claim could now be made that the lawyers might have moved documents — trudging back and forth over the documents and muddling up the “chain of custody.”

Finally, by signing off on potentially uncleared counsel to do the search, the Justice Department minimized Biden’s own conduct. If this was such a serious violation, the Justice Department did not appear particularly concerned or motivated to correct it. It allowed private counsel to set the parameters of their search and will rely on their account of what was found and where.

It is a particularly glaring anomaly after the Justice Department litigated its opposition to allow a court special master to review seized material from Trump. It argued that the use of this retired judge was an unspeakable deprivation of its authority, but it appears entirely comfortable with using unknown parties to seize material.

The news report indicates that one of the reasons for allowing Biden to use his own lawyers was to “preserve the ability to take a tougher line, including executing a future search warrant, if negotiations ever turned hostile.” That rationale is equally baffling. You usually want to take a “tougher line” to force a party to give you something like access to the material. However, the Justice Department was reportedly offered that access. It was turning down that access. It is akin to saying that I could have used my keys to enter the home but that would have meant that I could not later force the residents to open the door. If it conducted the search, it could record the search, seize the documents, and take any position it wanted after the fact.

None of this would help make the case against Biden or others on the unlawful possession and handling of classified material. However, it does strengthen the case for the House committee now being assembled to investigate the Justice Department and the FBI.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School.

198 thoughts on ““We’re Here to Help”: The Justice Department Makes The Case . . . for a Congressional Investigation”

  1. It has finally convinced a moderate like me that there is efforts by the federal bureaucracies to help politicians who are favorable to them. The goal is to keep their agencies afloat, and for power. Thank God we’re in an era of institutional crisis. All the Kings horses and all the King’s men, won’t put Humpty Dumpty bureaucracy back together again.

    1. Thank you.

      While I have defended Trump against stupid attacks by left wing nuts.
      I did not vote for him in either 2016 or 2020.

      The most important reason I MIGHT vote for him in 2024 is because he is our best hope at ending the intrusion of those in government in our lives.

      If you are in the CIA or FBI and you are motivated politically – take your political passion outside your job, and run for office or campaign for whoever you wish – on your own time, and without using ANY of your authority as a government official.

      If you abridge the rights of ordinary people in your job without the strongest legal justification – there is a circle of hell reserved for you.
      If you put your fingers on the scales of elections using your government powers – you are a criminal.

      We spent 4 years being harangued about fake Russian interference in our elections.
      All the while those in our government were actively engaged in rigging our elections.

      I do not care what your politics are – this should deeply offend and terrify you.

      1984 is a warning – not a howto manual.

  2. Undermines the credibility of the justice department? If Credibility was the name of a horse stabled in the DOJ. I can say that horse fled the DOJ a long time ago. Pity there are no cowboys the DOJ could send out to lasso Credibility and bring her back the the stable. I’m fairly certain the DOJ isn’t interested getting Credibility back, anymore than discovering Biden’s role in compromising classified materials found on his premises.

  3. Strange front-page article in today’s (Jan. 19) Washington Post that opens with the Nov. 2 discovery of the documents by Biden personal attorney Pat Moore but does not explain what he was doing in that office on that date beyond saying that he was clearing out the office. Why suddenly, after 6 years?

    1. Lysias – according to Breitbart, the story also says that the DOJ and Biden’s attorneys had an agreement to keep the search for documents under wraps. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/01/19/report-white-house-doj-agreed-hide-classified-document-scandal/ [“Early on, Biden’s attorneys and Justice Department investigators both thought they had a shared understanding about keeping the matter quiet,” the Post admitted . . .]

  4. When the FBI/DOJ launched their pre-dawn Raid on Trump’s home in Trump’s absence in fully weaponized Military Battlefield armour, amongst all the reasons presented was that of wanting to search through everyone’s rooms and closets to hopefully find more hidden Documents and with parties without Clearance. Easy to speculate that this is precisely what Biden wanted to avoid, as, after all, for all intents and purposes this was Hunter’s house and the possibility of finding Classified material in Hunter’s stuff was very real… thus it was handled to keep Hunter at arm’s length…

  5. Amazing how left wing bias is always the elephant in the room. Probably because the lefties are blind to it. There is so much they believe that isn’t so [paraphrasing Reagan].

  6. The following quote is embarrassing. “However, when it was exposed that Trump and Biden retained classified documents, what the US media and politicians focus on is not why the two presidents had hidden documents, how they were discovered, what loopholes the US political system and laws have, or how it impacts the US’ national security and the public’s interests. Instead, they have exploited it as an instrument to retaliate against political opponents. Justice, fairness, and the rule of law are worthless in US politics, but political interests are above everything else.” It is quoted by Breitbart from the Global Times, a newpaper controlled by the Chinese government. https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2023/01/18/china-biden-document-scandal-proves-justice-is-worthless-u-s-politics/ Isn’t this true, especially as to the months-long hounding of Donald Trump? A great power does not convulse itself over missing library books.

  7. “It’s the [Obama], stupid!”

    – James Carville
    _____________

    IF COMEY HAD INDICTED HILLARY, COMEY WOULD HAVE CONVICTED OBAMA

    Obama et al. are complicit in the gross mishandling of classified material by Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.

    Obama used a pseudonymous e-mail account to conspire with Hillary.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/09/obama-email-alias-clinton-why-fbi-didnt-prosecute-hillary/
    _______________________________________________________

    “Obama’s Conflict Tanked the Clinton E-mail Investigation — As Predicted”

    By Andrew C. McCarthy

    September 26, 2016 8:00 AM
    Hillary couldn’t be proven guilty without proving the president guilty as well.

    ‘How is this not classified?”

    So exclaimed Hillary Clinton’s close aide and confidante, Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton’s private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system — something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.

    Abedin was sufficiently stunned that, for just a moment, the bottomless capacity of Clinton insiders to keep cool in a scandal was overcome. “How is this not classified?”

    She recovered quickly enough, though. The FBI records that the next thing Abedin did, after “express[ing] her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym,” was to “ask if she could have a copy of the email.”

    Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If Obama himself had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.

        1. As with Hillary’s destruction of evidence, the Biden gang was given ample opportunity to destroy and control evidence of national security violations and criminal influence peddling by the FBI and DOJ.

  8. The DOJ chose not to be there because the Biden lawyers have been forthcoming and cooperating fully. One of Biden’s lawyers has a security clearance. He supervised the search and the DOJ did have an agent present who took the documents.

    Turley as always tells half the story and pretends to be the ignorant of Trump’s case. He doesn’t delve too deeply into the details of Trump’s case precisely because it will undermine his narrative

    1. The DOJ also wasn’t present at Trump’s most recent searches of his properties. They even had to go to court to get the names of the people who carried out the searches. Turley is silent about this because it doesn’t fit his gripe.

        1. The most recent searches didn’t take place at MaL, thanks for showing how little you’re attending to it.

                1. I didn’t. One of your favorite ways of trolling is by pretending that people have done things they haven’t done.

                  Unless/until there is a trial, there is only an alleged crime — not a confirmed crime — for both of them.

    2. This is such trash. If the Biden lawyers have been forthcoming and cooperating fully” we would have heard about it months ago. The other lawyers didn’t have security clearance and Biden’s lawyer shouldn’t have been there with or without security clearance. Biden was not President and when he committed his crime, he didn’t have the rights of a President.

      You complain that Turley provides only half the story, but he is providing the legal facts. You want him to promote your type of ignorance. He won’t.

      1. S. Meyer,

        “ This is such trash. If the Biden lawyers have been forthcoming and cooperating fully” we would have heard about it months ago.”

        Why would you have heard it months ago? You didn’t hear about Trump’s classified documents problem for nearly a year. You only know about it because Trump blabbed about it. The DOJ has a policy of not discussing details of investigations. They did it for Trump and they did it for Biden.

        “ The other lawyers didn’t have security clearance and Biden’s lawyer shouldn’t have been there with or without security clearance.”

        Why shouldn’t he have been there? It’s his lawyer just like Trump had his lawyers searching for documents. Trump’s lawyers didn’t have clearance. One of Biden’s lawyers did.

        “ Biden was not President and when he committed his crime, he didn’t have the rights of a President.”

        He was Vice President he had the authority to obtain and possess classified documents. What crime did he commit? Being a VP who HAS top secret clearance ALLOWED him to view, obtain, and request classified information. So what’s this crime you’re referring to?

        “ You complain that Turley provides only half the story, but he is providing the legal facts. You want him to promote your type of ignorance. He won’t.”

        He’s providing half the facts. He’s pretending to be ignorant of Trump’s case just to make Biden’s problems look worse. Trump just admitted that he took folders labeled classified because they were “cool”.

        1. He was Vice President he had the authority to obtain and possess classified documents.
          That power evaporated after he left office.
          The The violation of the law is not who has the document. It is the strict rules pertaining to possession and storage. The Penn Biden Chinese office is not secured for classified documents. The person responsible for storing the documents breaking the law.

          1. Iowan2,

            “ That power evaporated after he left office.
            The The violation of the law is not who has the document. ”

            You realize Trump’s power as president also ‘evaporated’ once he left office, right?

            Biden had authority when those documents were first taken. So did his staff which is more likely. Staff usually handle such things and they do it on a daily basis.

            “ It is the strict rules pertaining to possession and storage.”

            True, that means he had a right to possess those documents at the time he was VP. Forgetting to give them back does not mean he ‘took’ them illegally. We don’t even know who procured the documents. Staff are usually responsible for that task. That still does not change the fact that Biden’s lawyers acted accordingly and did the responsible thing instead of obfuscate and obstruct like trump’s lawyers did. The DOJ will be much more lenient when there is full cooperation and they would be much more willing to let things go. Trump proved to be untrustworthy around classified information so much that he was barred by Biden from getting National security briefings traditionally given to ex-presidents.

            “ The Penn Biden Chinese office is not secured for classified documents. The person responsible for storing the documents breaking the law.”

            We don’t know that. We don’t even know if it was Biden who handled the documents. It’s not illegal or a crime to forget. It’s negligence at best. THAT is the real problem that needs to be addressed. The tracking of such documents and why they are often left or ‘forgotten’ without anyone knowing.

            1. You realize Trump’s power as president also ‘evaporated’ once he left office, right?

              Note the DoJ wanted documents “marked” classified. Because Trump, by the act of moving them, declassified them before he left office. A power Biden never had.

              1. “Trump, by the act of moving them, declassified them before he left office”

                The act of moving them doesn’t declassify them, and the PRA applies to all documents with classified markings that passed through his office, whether or not they were declassified.

            2. Biden’s lawyers acted accordingly and did the responsible thing instead of obfuscate and obstruct like trump’s lawyers did,

              Hiding the documents fore 6 years os the opposite of responsible. And YES Biden knew he had them at the Penn, Biden, Chinese office. That’s why he sent lawyers, and not 2 Men and Truck, to clear the office.

              1. Iowan2,

                “ Hiding the documents fore 6 years os the opposite of responsible. And YES Biden knew he had them at the Penn, Biden, Chinese office. That’s why he sent lawyers, and not 2 Men and Truck, to clear the office.”

                Nope. Because nobody knew the documents were missing. You don’t know why Biden knows or doesn’t know. Neither do I. He didn’t’ send lawyers there. Lawyers were called when they were discovered hon cleaning up the office. It was being repurposed for something else. When the documents were discovered they were promptly turned over to the proper authorities. Just because you want it to be something else doesn’t make it true. The facts don’t support your assertions.

        2. “Why would you have heard it months ago? You didn’t hear about Trump’s classified documents problem for nearly a year. You only know about it because Trump blabbed about it. The DOJ has a policy of not discussing details of investigations. They did it for Trump and they did it for Biden.”

          Trump didn’t have a “documents problem”. His attorneys were in contact with the Archives and he had the legal right to have the documents in his possession. That was merely the pretext that was used to stage a home invasion by his political opposition and yes, he talked about it because the “FBI” broke into his house and turned off his cameras, made his attorneys leave and ransacked his bedrooms. I would’ve talked about it, I would’ve showed the videos of it and I would have physically gone after the people who did this to me, on an individual level. Trump is too nice and he wants to be liked too bad.

          The DOJ has a policy of lying about Trump and weaponizing “investigations” against him. The purpose of the “investigations” is to give Democrat operatives free range to tell lies and call them leaks and to have those operatives weave whole narratives from cloth claiming “unnamed officials” or “sources familiar with Trump’s thinking” told them the BS they are spewing to advance whatever evil plot they are carrying out.

          The DOJ has done nothing but protect Biden even down to lying about his son’s laptop that I think was being used as an insurance policy in case Biden tried to cut him off.

          1. “ Trump didn’t have a “documents problem”. His attorneys were in contact with the Archives and he had the legal right to have the documents in his possession. ”

            Nope. The Presidential Records Act is very clear on this. Trump did not have a legal right to the documents in his possession. His attorneys were in contact with NARA and they were trying to comply, BUT Trump was the one who kept telling them ‘no, they are mine!” Trump had to prove to NARA and the DOJ that the documents were his to keep. He never did that. NARA gave Trump multiple opportunities to resolve the problem quietly. Trump being the idiot he is made his own problem worse by refusing to cooperate and chose instead to fight and deceive and obstruct. That ultimately ended up with a raid that showed Trump was indeed lying and was in possession of documents that were not his to keep.

        3. That is because you base your conclusions on ignorance. You are the only one on the Blog who doesn’t know it.

          1. S.Meyer, I base my arguments on facts. You don’t. All you have is insults. You don’t provide anything to back up your claims.

            1. You don’t base anything on fact. Ignorance is your guide and blindness is your badge.

              You constantly say others haven’t proven what they say, but repeatedly I dispel that lie of Yours. Here is one such email that I saved for times like this. It contains links to the blog proving you not only wrong but a liar as well. Your lies are proven facts


              Svelaz writes: “Again, you provided no documentation at all. You still haven’t. You “don’t feel obligated” because you never provided them in the first place and you can’t find it. You’re just covering for your BS claim.”

              Here are a couple of locations where I mentioned the address of the FDA report. This proves you don’t know what you are talking about.

              In the first one, I copied your statement, which is what is being argued about and is completely wrong,

              You said: “All the current vaccines have been granted full approval. ”

              Below is one of the many FDA postings I made. I believe others have posted FDA sites as well

              https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/03/new-york-announces-that-scarce-covid-19-treatments-will-be-prioritized-for-non-white-patients/comment-page-1/#comment-2148321

              In the second of the posts, I showed one of the reasons Pfizer might like this legal distinction.

              https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/03/new-york-announces-that-scarce-covid-19-treatments-will-be-prioritized-for-non-white-patients/comment-page-3/#comment-2148317

              I posted other things from the FDA with their addresses, and much of what I said was pure quotes from the FDA.

              This proves you to be what everyone knows you to be. You were wrong again, and it isn’t just about Covid. You have been proven wrong repeatedly on a multiplicity of subjects where proof has been provided. You deny the truth and the proof provided even when it is on the same official papers you have posted.

              1. S. Meyer, LOL!! You’ve been holding that grudge that long? Even when it’s still wrong. That’s really sad.

                “ You constantly say others haven’t proven what they say, but repeatedly I dispel that lie of Yours.”. That one time two years ago is no relevant to today’s conversation. Even that one was not proof. That doesn’t prove that you have provided any evidence on THIS issue. My claim still stands.

                1. Why would you think it is a grudge? You acted stupidly then and have done that throughout the blog. That is not the only time this has been pointed out to you.

                  Anyone can follow the links and see how you lie based on that one observation where I provided two links demonstrating your lies. I would have provided more, but we are limited to only two.

                  “That one time two years ago “

                  You don’t even get the time line right. It was one year ago not two.

                  Do you think people are as dumb as you. They have seen me provide evidence of your lies repeatedly.

    3. The DOJ chose not to be there because the Biden lawyers have been forthcoming and cooperating fully. One of Biden’s lawyers has a security clearance

      You are saying it is not a crime to place top secret documents in places that do not meet the standards for storing classified documents?
      Because is sounds like a crime. Especially for a person that can only declassify documents he created. A person that lacks plenary power to declassify. The DOJ declined to send the proper personnel….to a crime scene. The DoJ made a decision to allow the criminal to investigate the crime.
      Why is the White House special counsel sent to Biden”s House? This is an investigation that involves an administration from 2 administrations ago. This investigation has nothing to do with the Biden White House.

      Here’s a thought. Hiding classified documents for 6 years is not really cooperating. Finding the most incriminating evidence and destroying it, is not cooperating. I dont know it happened, but it has all the hallmarks of criminal obstruction.

      1. You Said
        ” The DOJ chose not to be there because the Biden lawyers have been forthcoming and cooperating fully. One of Biden’s lawyers has a security clearance”
        Reagan said “Trust but Verify”. Tell me how has that “forth coming and cooperating” Ben verified ?
        You also say one of BIDENs lawyers has a security clearance. His lawyer, not the governments lawyer. Is that not a Clear conflict of interest ?

    4. There are NO standards for Joe Biden. He lies all the time, claiming all kinds of easily provably false things like he was a truck driver or a professor. He embarrasses the country abroad and the most disgusting part is how the media lies for him and protects him. You’re attempting to do some of that here.
      Donald Trump, has the authority to classify and declassify records – Joe Biden did not. Trump had his records at the Winter White House, Maralago. He has a SCIF there and protection. The FBI ran down on his home to embarrass and demoralize him. It was a really disgusting display of disrespect but that’s what it was meant to do – it gave the base their daily dopamine hit of hate.
      Biden kept the documents they are admitting to having found, which he did not have the rights to have in his possession – PERIOD, at the Penn Biden Center where the Chinese are donating astronomical amounts of money and at a house where Hunter Biden used the address and claimed he was paying $50k a month in rent. Amongst other places. I don’t believe we know how many documents were really found or the importance of what was in those documents – related to place where Biden has financial interests like Ukraine, China and Iran. There is no reason in the world to believe that the Obama Administration with its many actors doing things like stealing Haiti’s aid money, Fast & Furious, allowing the US to be flooded with fentanyl and etc wouldn’t have taken and destroyed the records related to their wrongdoing. That’s what I believe Biden did.
      He has some documents being hidden by the Univ of DE and other documents hidden in the Penn Center and everywhere. He should have been raided and his properties searched.
      Biden is unflinchingly, flagrantly corrupt and he has been in political power going on half a century, longer than I have been alive. He has the entire media covering for him – his ass has been wiped, to use his quote. Its disgusting.

    5. “The DOJ chose not to be there because the Biden lawyers have been forthcoming . . .”

      So the new DOJ/FBI standard is: During an investigation, if your lawyers are “forthcoming” and “cooperating,” then your lawyers can conduct the investigation for us. (I wonder if other FBI/DOJ targets get that same consideration.)

      I suppose that “cooperation policy” does free FBI resources for more important matters, such as investigating garage-door pulls, hunting for lost dogs and “terrorist” parents, and gaming elections.

      1. When testifying before congress, the DOJ, FBI, etc, can honestly say they do not know how many classified documents there were or how many were destroyed by Biden and his personal lawyers.

      2. “ So the new DOJ/FBI standard is: During an investigation, if your lawyers are “forthcoming” and “cooperating,” then your lawyers can conduct the investigation for us. (I wonder if other FBI/DOJ targets get that same consideration.)”

        Not an investigation, conducting searches. Trump’s lawyers also conducted searches without the FBI or the DOJ. The difference is Biden’s lawyers were in contact with the DOJ and they knew who was conducting the searches. One of Biden’s lawyers HAS a security clearance. In contrast Trump’s lawyers ‘searched’ his other properties without telling the DOJ who did the searches and if they had any security clearances. The DOJ had to get a court order to identify the people who searched Trump’s properties for more missing documents. Which one do you think seems more cooperative?

  9. Imagine Elliot Ness trusting Al Capone’s lawyers to conduct a search of Capone’s residence to see if there was any evidence of Capone’s misconduct sitting around in folders labeled in big red letters “MURDERS, EXTORTION, AND BOOTLEGGING.”
    That’s the Joetard Department of Justice.

    1. It was also Obama’s Department of Justice. Is this not very like the instance of the DNC refusing to allow the FBI access to their supposedly ‘hacked’ server, nor even the actual forensic report of their own hirelings? And the FBI saying, “sure, that’s fine, we’ll take the summary as evidence.”

      I said at the time it was as if police were called to a burglary to find a spotless home, and the residents said, “oh, it was such a mess, we had to clean it up before you got here. But we did dust for fingerprints – here you are,” and the police said, “that’s fine, thank you.”

      Can you imagine police officers acting thus? Neither can I.

        1. The FBI NEVER conducted a byte-for-byte analysis of that data. When asked for the FBI created analysis of the DNC server in discovery, the FBI said they never created one.

            1. I dont have to reread anything. FACTS are clear. The FBI was asked to deliver the FBI analysis of the DNC servers, by subpoena, responded they had no such report. ONLY the Crowd Strike analysis

              That matches Ed Henry’s testimony and Wray’s testimony in front of Congress. Ed Henry also testified Crowd Strike never found evidence the DNC emails were removed from the DNC server over the internet.

              The FBI may have a copy, but they never analyzed that copy.

              1. You’re wrong, and I already provided evidence in previous exchanges about it. You’ll never admit you’re wrong. You never do, no matter the topic, no matter the evidence.

            2. https://consortiumnews.com/2019/06/17/fbi-never-saw-crowdstrike-unredacted-or-final-report-on-alleged-russian-hacking-because-none-was-produced/

              https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/doj-admits-fbi-never-saw-crowdstrike-report-on-dnc-russian-hacking-claim/

              “This means the FBI and DOJ, and all of the downstream claims by the intelligence apparatus; including the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report and January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, all the way to the Weissmann/Mueller report and the continued claims therein; were based on the official intelligence agencies of the U.S. government and the U.S. Department of Justice taking the word of a hired contractor for the Democrat party….. despite their inability to examine the server and/or actually see an unredacted technical forensic report from the investigating contractor.

              You constantly throw out all this chaff that is meaningless. Just to confuse.

              “Some” of the Crowdstrike images were given to the FBI….Meaningless information, The FBI has testified they used the Crowdstrike report. The request for Brady material, ie, the FBI analysis of the DNC servers was refused by the FBI because the FBI never did their own analysis of the data they were given.

              1. The FBI has ALSO testified they used the forensic images they were given by Crowdstrike.

                You can lie about it as many times as you like, but that doesn’t change the facts that they were given byte-for-byte images.

        2. The FBI got a byte-for-byte copy of the DNC server, not a “summary.”

          This is obviously Sworn testimony if front of Congress

          BURR:And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate — did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?

          COMEY:In the case of the DNC, … we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn’t get direct access.

          BURR:But no content?

          COMEY:Correct.

          BURR:Isn’t content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?
          ———-
          No byte-for-byte copy of content

          1. And as I previously pointed out to you and even linked to above, “relevant forensic information” INCLUDES a byte-for-byte copy.

            1. Forensic information is the analysis of facts. A blood sample is nothing but a blood sample As a data point along with other evidence creates forensic information.

              The testimony of the FBI is “relevent” forensic evidence. NOT all forensic evidence, “relevent”. As determined by CrowdStrike. BUT no content.
              What exactly is the “content” the FBI lacked? I’ll help. A copy of the hard drive.

              Still waiting for the proof of the byte-for-byte transfer to the FBI. I haven’t run across it. But it is NOT RELEVANT. The FBI has testified in multiple ways they relied ONLY on the summary provided by Crowdstrike

              1. No!

                FFS, I already linked to a comment where I gave you the government’s OWN DEFINITION of what it means by “forensics.” Here it is AGAIN: https://nij.ojp.gov/digital-evidence-and-forensics — “law enforcement agencies are incorporating the collection and analysis of digital evidence, also known as computer forensics

                Comey said “we got the forensics from [Crowdstrike].” That means that Crowdstrike gave the FBI all of the digital evidence that Crowdstrike had. And Crowdstrike had a byte-for-byte copy.

                “NOT all forensic evidence, “relevent”.”

                ROFL that you’re now arguing that the byte-for-byte argument is not relevant. Hahahahaha!

                1. That means that Crowdstrike gave the FBI all of the digital evidence that Crowdstrike had.

                  I provided Comey testimony
                  To paraphrase.
                  Q.Did the FBI have access to the DNC servers
                  A. No, but we got forensics from the a third party
                  Q. but no content?
                  A. Correct, no content
                  Q. Isn’t content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?

                  To recap.
                  The subject of the line of questioning is FBI access to the DNC server
                  Comey explained they used the forensic report (a redacted report) from a third party. BUT the FBI NEVER got CONTENT from the servers.

                  The other link I provided explains Roger Stone asked for the FBI analysis of the DNC server to use in his defense at trial.
                  The FBI refused because they do not have a FBI analysis of the FBI servers. They relyed on a report from a third party.

                  More recap
                  Comey testifies the FBI has no content from the DNC servers
                  The FBI cannot provide Brady material of evidence surrounding the DNC hack because the FBI never generated such evidence.

                  1. You’re too cowardly to quote him.

                    You paraphrase because what he actually said doesn’t support the story you wish to tell. Coward.

                    1. I have provided on this thread all the information and the source of what I quoted.

                      You Have have refused to provide the source of your assertion the FBI has the byte-for-Byte copy. But that is meaningless, Because the FBI never did their own analysis…IF they had the data.
                      Waiting for you to back up your claim

  10. Perhaps some of the insightful attorneys on here like Mespo, Honestlawyermostly, Lin and a few others can enlighten nonlawyers like me on Robert Hur. Thanks in advance

    free link

    Robert Hur Leaves NFL Behind to Take On Special Counsel Role

    Mr. Hur is expected to begin as special counsel at the end of January after winding down his work at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the law firm he joined as a partner in 2021 after serving as the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Maryland. For Mr. Hur, the appointment entails leaving behind what promised to be a lucrative client in the NFL, which had turned to him to defend against a lawsuit brought by the Washington, D.C., attorney general.

    In Mr. Hur, the attorney general picked a Justice Department veteran with experience in the George W. Bush and Trump administrations and political savvy, former colleagues said. During his tenure as U.S. attorney for Maryland, Mr. Hur’s office handled several high-profile cases and secured a conviction against former Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh on fraud and tax charges.

    Wall Street Journal
    Jan 18, 2023

  11. I would be a little more literal in my comparisons namely did the DOJ by it’s extension the FBLie afford the same level of agency to the myriad of J6’ers as they did the Bidens or did they come in guns blazing?

  12. The scariest finding in the past two years concerning Attorney General Garland is how close he came to being on the U.S. Supreme Court. Truly a horrifying thought.

      1. Yep. With Sotomayor unhappy and cantankerous, the new Dem Senate could make Garland the replacement. All planned. She is following orders and Roberts can’t wait.

  13. I don’t see any way possible Biden can politically recover from this. He weaponized the Fed, set the FBI on Trump and his family, was highly critical publicly, while knowingly doing the very same thing himself, if not worse. And now Biden admin is refusing to answer questions. Why would the DOJ now opt to violate what is apparently standard operating procedure or security protocol – as evidenced by the raid on Mar-a-Lago – concerning secret documents? How does a prosecutor prosecute when they themselves act so obviously unlawfully? This whole “case” against Trump, start to finish, from the 2016 campaign forward, is just insane. The corruption at the federal level is just insane. Why would would any American – why would anyone – continue to pay taxes to a governmental agency or entity so obviously and so thoroughly corrupt? Sure, all fear the reaper, all fear the IRS, but, but, why do we continue to do this?

    1. Well folks, I asked the same questions over and over again, and have felt for 6 going on 7 years that its hopeless, the swamp is just too powerful. Then I realized in the past few weeks that a dream of DJT becoming Speaker of the House might have actually come true… think about it… We are in for such a ride! Put on your seat belts folks!!!!

      1. I think and hope we are past peak woke.

        I see posts from the leaders of the left or what they say on the news and I ask who buys this nonsense ?

        I have been waiting for 4 6 years for the moment the left “jumped the shark” – the lie that was just too big for people to swallow, or the one that allowed people to say – no matter what is wrong with the Right, the left is batschiff crazy and dangerous.

        I thought we would arrive there with a bang, but it appears more of a whimper.

        Regardless, I think we have arrived. If not we are close.

  14. “[the DOJ] appears entirely comfortable with using unknown parties to seize material.”

    Just like they did with Trump for over a year before the MaL search. What’s good for the goose …

    “The department is threatening criminal charges over the mishandling of classified material”

    No, it’s threatening criminal charges over obstruction.

    “Trump was contesting the claim that the documents were classified”

    In all his legal filings before Judge Reinhardt, Judge Cannon, and the 11th Circuit, Trump has NEVER contested that the documents were classified. He claims in public that he declassified them, but he’s a pathological liar, and what really matters is (a) if he contests it legally and (b) provides evidence. We already know for a fact that he sometimes claims in public to have declassified XYZ and then is contradicted in a statement under penalty of perjury from his own Chief of Staff.

    “According to Trump staff, the FBI was given access to documents in the storage room.”

    Not in any legal documents. In contrast, in legal documents, the DOJ stated that they “were allowed only a brief view of the storage room and were expressly told that they could not open any boxes to review their contents” and “they were explicitly prohibited from opening any of the approximately fifty to fifty-five boxes that they observed.”

    Let the Trump staff testify about it under oath.

    “it does strengthen the case for the House committee now being assembled to investigate the Justice Department and the FBI.”

    Fine by me. I look forward to hearing what they say about both the Trump and Biden searches.

    1. Or rather, let the FBI and Justice Department swear about it under oath since there is video of the whole thing…and when the FBI/DOJ found THAT out they freaked and wanted it so they could keep from potentially committing perjury. The motions at issue before the court did not require any claims about declassification – it would have surely been ruled as extraneous to the motions. Besided, no court in the land has the ability to offer a judicial opinion one way or another on the express powers of the President under Article II as the Chief Executive. Especially in matters of espionage, classification or foreign affairs.

      1. “there is video of the whole thing”

        What “whole thing” are you referring to — the search? something else?

        “The motions at issue before the court did not require any claims about declassification”

        That’s false. The Special Master explicitly asked Trump to provide a list of the documents he claims to have declassified, and Trump (as perhaps you recall, Trump is the one who sought the Special Master in the first place — a Special Master appointed by Cannon) balked. Maybe you didn’t keep track of the case at that level of detail.

        “it would have surely been ruled as extraneous to the motions”

        It wasn’t. Do you need me to give you the link to the case?

          1. Dearie ordered it, and Trump balked and was in the midst of fighting the order when the 11th Circuit ruling made it moot.

            1. Then why didn’t the court order Trump to comply? Oh yea, the court said Dearie is the special master. Not in position to make demands.

                  1. Look up the meaning of “moot” (as in “Trump balked and was in the midst of fighting the order when the 11th Circuit ruling made it moot“). You could remedy your lack of understanding, if only you wanted to.

    2. DO you recall the standard of American Justice – Innocent until proven Guilty ?

      Trump is not required to prove anything to Cannon.
      Now was his goal to challenge the classified documents, it was to get back the rest of his property,
      and to throw DOJ/Biden onto the back foot politically.

      I would note there IS a fundimental difference between Trump and Biden on this.

      The left says Biden cooperated – that is incorrect. Biden has CONFESSED.
      Trump has from Day one – before the MAL Raid consistently asserted these documents are ALL his and they are declassified.

      You can beleive he is wrong – but ultimately DOJ Must prove that in court. And as much as you personally beleive that right now
      that is going to be hard. A whole strong of PRA cases says those documents are HIS – because he says so.
      Trump did not make that rule – the courts did – probably because the constitution required it.
      But even if the courts ultimately decide they were wrong in the past – you can not make it a crime to rely on past court decisions.

      You claim obstruction – you can not obstruct if the law is on your side. You can not obstruct even if you are wrong on the law – if the fact that you are wrong on the law was not decided at the time.

      JW v NARA did not care that some of what Clinton had in his posession was classified.

      Trump has consistently claimed Innocence from the start. More than Innocence – a RIGHT to these documents.

      Your argument that Trump has not made ALL the arguments that he could have in a civil lawsuit is irrelevant.
      His lawyers almost certainly advised him to hold off on some claims in case there is a criminal indictment.

      We can fight over whether Trump is actually innocent – but there is a very compelling argument that he is – whether you like that argument or not. And that alone is actually enough.

      Presidents can decide what the will keep.
      Presidents can decide what is classified.

      But Vice presidents are far limited in either.
      Biden has addmitted that he is guilty and thrown himself on th mercy or DOJ/the press by claiming – Atleast I did the right thing unlike Bad old Trump.

      But Biden did NOT do the right thing. It is highly unlikely he could take the documents he did. It is highly unlikely he could declassifiy them. It is highly unlikely he could claim they belonged to him. Regardless Biden has waived those arguments – probably because they are 1000 times harder to make as VP.
      But even if Biden was free to take those documents. So long as they are still classified – he could not store them in his garage, his library, multiple homes and worst of all a chinese funded think tank.

      Further Biden is asking you to beleive he had nothign to do with removing them from the Government in 2017, and nothing to do with moving them to locations all over the place over the next 6 years, and that documents in clearly marked colders with red and yellow stripes on the edges were floating all over – without his noticing for 6 years.

      The press made a big deal about the documents being removed from their jackets at MAL – but that is appropriate if the docs are declassified.
      In fact If Trump removed them from binders while president – they are declassified.
      But this is a bigger problem for Biden. He is not claiming innocence. He did not inadvertantly remove documents from binders, and he did not inadvertently not notice documents in binders smeared all over his life.

      You can choose to beleive Trump is lying – but there is no proof of that – he easily could be correct, He owns these documents.
      But even if SCOTUS ultimately decides he is wrong, what they can not do is decide he was wrong to beleive they were his.

      Biden does not have that defense, and did not from the moment he chastised Trump in front of the world after the MAL raid.

      He is inarguably guilty – he has admitted as much. But he is guiltier than he admits, because he can not have inadvertently removed them in Jan 2017, inadvertantly moved them multiple times, inadvertantly not noticed they were jacketted and/or inadvertantly removed the jackets.

      And worst of all both forgot about all of this when he said “Inexcusable” about Trump. And Not bothered to rush out BEFORE the MAL raid and quietly clean up his own mess before Targeting Trump.

      And lets not forget – the Biden WH was after Trump over this from DAY ONE.

      The worst thing is to be a hypocrite – when those you are attacking are probably innocent.

      Whether you like it or not this is REALLY bad for Biden.

      Not because his legal jeophardy is high. But because he and all those arround him have been shown to be DISHONEST Hypocrites.

      1. If you think I’m going to wade through that word vomit to find the small nuggets worth responding to, you are sadly mistaken. You’re not paid to edit your comments, and I’m not paid to wade through the vomited words.

        1. I do not care what you chose to read. That is your business.

          But do not claim to be informed, to know what you are talking about unless you are prepared to not just read, but understand point by point – even if you do not agree those you disagree with.

          I do that here constantly with those of you on the left.
          I often address you “word vomit” phrase by phrase addressing each and every flaw. As well as the few moments in which you say something with merit.

          That is what is necescary to get at the truth.

          “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

          ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

          1. There’s plenty of evidence that I regularly read comments by those I disagree with, such as the one I’m responding to right now.

            I doubt you read all comments. You certainly don’t respond to all comments, or even all comments made to you specifically. Like you, I choose not to respond to all comments, including some that are made to me.

            1. You continue to post as anonymous.

              There is no evidence of anything. You CHOSE not to have an identity. You can not have it both ways

              I have no idea what you actually do.

              What I know is what you say.

              You said you ignored most of a comment and provided no basis for doing so. Instead insulting what you admit you did not read.
              Again you can not have it both ways.

              And as is typical of the left – you would rather argue over how to argue – such as this. Rather than argue over the substance of the debate.

              ” or even all comments made to you specifically.”
              I probably do respond to 80% of the comments to me. Especially ones that disagree, and that do not repeat arguments already addressed.

              I am not obligated to – nor are you.

              Unlike you I do not insult arguments I have not read.

              1. One doesn’t have to read your word vomits in their entirety to conclude that that’s what they are. Skimming and volume is sufficient.

                    1. Trust me ATS, John is worth it. He is an excellent commenter. You are not. You practice deception and you are not very good at it.

                    2. Typical of the left – always about people.

                      This is not about me.

                      You do not make arguments – not to me.
                      Not to anyone.

                      Non-sequiturs, ad hominem and other fallacies are not arguments.

                      You can hide from me – though you only seem to do that when cornered,

                      but you can not hide the absence of an argument.

        2. Are you paid though to come on here and spread propaganda? Are you one of the 16,000 McChrystal Pentagon funded Disinfo people?

      2. “ Trump is not required to prove anything to Cannon.”

        He is required to prove those documents are his. It’s his burden. Because it’s a civil case the burden of proof is on Trump not the DOJ.

        “ You can beleive he is wrong – but ultimately DOJ Must prove that in court.”

        They already did. The 11th circuit and judge Reinhardt had evidence provided by NARA thru the PRA. TRUMP never seeks to prove the documents are his because he has no proof. He can’t show that all of those documents are personal property. The special master directly asked Trump for that very proof and the first thing he and his lawyers did was run to judge Cannon to prevent it. He doesn’t want to go there because he knows he will lose.

        “ Presidents can decide what the will keep.
        Presidents can decide what is classified.”

        Nope. You have been shown multiple times that’s not true. Even the “case law” you cited proved that claim wrong. The PRA is very explicit in what is and isn’t personal property and presidential record.

        “ Your argument that Trump has not made ALL the arguments that he could have in a civil lawsuit is irrelevant.
        His lawyers almost certainly advised him to hold off on some claims in case there is a criminal indictment.”

        Trump NEVER listens to his lawyers. That’s the problem. That’s why he can’t get competent lawyers to represent him. He has had plenty of opportunities to show his claims are valid and he never does. He makes a lot of claims publicly, but never in court under oath. He’s a liar.

        “ But Biden did NOT do the right thing. It is highly unlikely he could take the documents he did. It is highly unlikely he could declassifiy them. It is highly unlikely he could claim they belonged to him.”

        That’s a lot of “unlikely’s” for your claim to be as certain you make it. Turning over documents as soon as they are found is exactly what you’re supposed to do. Trump didn’t do that and claimed without proof that the documents in his possession were his. You’ve already acknowledged Biden can declassify documents after searching credible sources. Biden never claimed they belonged to him. President’s can’t claim such documents belong to them. The PRA is very clear on that.

        “ You can choose to beleive Trump is lying – but there is no proof of that – he easily could be correct, He owns these documents.”

        Nope. There’s plenty of proof. He got served with a search warrant precisely because he lied His security clearance has been revoked because he can’t be trusted. His lawyers have been ordered by Trump to not let the DOJ look into boxes he had in storage instead of cooperating like Biden. The contrasts are so stark that Trump supporters such as yourself are trying really hard to make Biden’s issue worse to deflect from Trump’s bigger legal problems. He’s under criminal investigation. Biden is not.

        “ He is inarguably guilty – he has admitted as much. But he is guiltier than he admits, because he can not have inadvertently removed them in Jan 2017, inadvertantly moved them multiple times, inadvertantly not noticed they were jacketted and/or inadvertantly removed the jackets.”

        Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. He didn’t admit any guilt. Don’t lie John. Cooperating is not guilt. Your animosity towards Biden is corrupting your judgment.

        “ And lets not forget – the Biden WH was after Trump over this from DAY ONE.

        The worst thing is to be a hypocrite – when those you are attacking are probably innocent.”

        Speaking of hypocrisy, you just attacked Biden and declared him guilty without a shred of proof. Trump isn’t guilty either, yet. But the evidence against him is far more solid than most people think.

        Trump has been lying from the start. Trump was given multiple opportunities to resolve his issue for nearly two years years. Because he’s an idiot and a bad liar HE got himself into this mess. Biden is getting more lenient treatment because he’s cooperating and doing the right thing. He has less legal exposure because he is doing what is expected and what the law requires. Trump didn’t. He was combative, obstructive, deceitful, and a liar. That doesn’t gain any trust and cooperation from the DOJ which would have given Trump the same lenient treatment Biden got. Quit making excuses for Trump’s own failures.

        “ Whether you like it or not this is REALLY bad for Biden.

        Not because his legal jeophardy is high. But because he and all those arround him have been shown to be DISHONEST Hypocrites.”

        Nope, it’s telling that you can’t articulate exactly what that legal jeopardy is. You’re just ranting because Biden’s predicament is really a lot less worse than his critics want to believe. This is about petty vindictiveness over the “unfair” treatment of Trump because the idiot brought it upon himself. You’ve been wrong in this issue from the very beginning. It’s as simple as that.

        1. The PRA is very explicit in what is and isn’t personal property and presidential record.

          You never provide a source for your wild claims.

          The PRA. is a gentleman’s agreement. It has not been challenged, because ff a case gets to SCOTUS it will be overturned on the basis of separation of powers. The Legislative Branch cannot set policy for the Executive Branch. There is no case law where a court ruled against a President keeping his Personal documents. Presidents have acquiesced to negotiations concerning items. But a court has never ruled a President has to turn something over to satisfy the PRA

          1. Iowan2,

            “ The PRA. is a gentleman’s agreement.”

            The PRA is the law. It has the force of law enacted by congress. That’s why it’s called the Presidential records Act. Not the presidential gentlemans agreement.

            “ You never provide a source for your wild claims.”

            I’ve provided it multiple times, just ask John B. Say. He’s been given this multiple times.

            But just to satisfy YOUR own curiosity here it is, one more time.

            https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

            “ The term “Presidential records” means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term–

            (A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but

            (B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.

            (3) The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes–

            (A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;

            (B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and

            (C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.”

            “ The Legislative Branch cannot set policy for the Executive Branch. There is no case law where a court ruled against a President keeping his Personal documents.”

            Yes there is, thanks to John B. Say he provided it when he tried to argue the opposite.

            Here’s the opinion,

            “ The Armstrong I opinion does not stand for the unequivocal proposition that all decisions made pursuant to the PRA are immune from judicial review…. [W]e held that those decisions that involve materials that are truly presidential records are immune from judicial review. We did not hold in Armstrong I that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise “virtually complete control” over it, notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of “presidential records” in the PRA.
            Id. at 1293–94 (internal citations omitted). Notably, the D.C. Circuit did not insist: “We did not hold in Armstrong I that the President could designate any material he wishes as personal records.” In other words, Armstrong II did not announce that there was any limit to the President’s discretion to segregate materials as personal even though it did conclude that the courts could play some role in overseeing the decision to classify agency records as presidential.”

            https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives-records-admin

            1. The PRA is the law – only to the extent it is within the power of congress, and only to the extent that it is consistent with itself.

              I wish our laws were all written far better, but they are not.

              Another of the many reason we read them narrowly.

              The courts read laws narrowly – because otherwise they conflict with themselves, the constitution and other laws.

              You are correct that in Armstrong II the court said they did not find that the President could designate anything he wanted as personal.
              Specifically they found that NSC records – which are Not WH records, could not be declared personal.
              You are also correct they did not find that the president could say “PRA” and escape Judicial review.
              That is nonsense.

              What you get WRONG is that Armstrong, Armstrong II and JW v NARA DID pretty close to absolutely say that if something is a Presidential record and ONLY a presidential record it is not subject to judicial review and the president can do as he pleases.

              Armstrong and Armstrong II were actually decided AGAINST the President.
              And the reason they were was Because the records in question were NOT White House Records. They were the records of Agencies created by Congress. The White House (or more accurately the Office of the president and the Executive more generally) was created by the Constitution, and they are outside the scope of Congress and outside of Judicial Review. Armstrong found that GWB had the power to destroy WH Records as he pleased. But he did NOT have the power to destroy NSC records, that while these Were Presidential records, the were also Agencies records and subject to congressional regulation – including the APA and FRA.

              Armstrong II later decided that GWB could not be found in contempt of court – apparently the records were destroyed, Because even though wrong he had sufficient basis to rely on his presidential powers, and because the court order was aparently not clear enough.

              Regardless, BOTH found that anything that is a presidential record and is NOT a record otherwise subject to the power of Congress, could be destroyed or declared personal by the President and not subject to judicial review.

              1. “ What you get WRONG is that Armstrong, Armstrong II and JW v NARA DID pretty close to absolutely say that if something is a Presidential record and ONLY a presidential record it is not subject to judicial review and the president can do as he pleases.”

                John, “DID pretty close to absolutely say”? No they didn’t. That’s not what they ultimately said. They mused that SOME things were not judicially reviewable and those instances are very narrow. It doesn’t apply to what have been trying to argue. Which is the point.

                “ Armstrong found that GWB had the power to destroy WH Records as he pleased. But he did NOT have the power to destroy NSC records, that while these Were Presidential records, the were also Agencies records and subject to congressional regulation – including the APA and FRA.”

                The PRA does not allow the president to destroy WH records as he pleases. Armstrong I did not find that he had the power to destroy WH records. The court found that he had completely authority to do what he wanted with them, but that is limited by the PRA. The PRA explicitly states that the president MUST notify the archivist that he intends to destroy WH records. The archivist does not have the ability to stop it, but they CAN report it to the DOJ. The PRA clearly states that WH records cannot be destroyed by the president as an unilateral action. He’s required to notify the archives.

                “ Regardless, BOTH found that anything that is a presidential record and is NOT a record otherwise subject to the power of Congress, could be destroyed or declared personal by the President and not subject to judicial review.”

                Wrong, apparently you didn’t read through the opinion very well.

                “ The Armstrong I opinion does not stand for the unequivocal proposition that all decisions made pursuant to the PRA are immune from judicial review…. [W]e held that those decisions that involve materials that are truly presidential records are immune from judicial review. We did not hold in Armstrong I that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise “virtually complete control” over it, notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of “presidential records” in the PRA.
                Id. at 1293–94 (internal citations omitted). Notably, the D.C. Circuit did not insist: “We did not hold in Armstrong I that the President could designate any material he wishes as personal records.” In other words, Armstrong II did not announce that there was any limit to the President’s discretion to segregate materials as personal even though it did conclude that the courts could play some role in overseeing the decision to classify agency records as presidential.

                Thus, a close reading of the Armstrong II decision suggests that the limited judicial review authorized by the D.C. Circuit left untouched that portion of Armstrong I that gave the President unfettered control over his own documents.Some of the language in Armstrong II led another court in this district to comment that “Armstrong II does not necessarily foreclose judicial review of a decision to denominate certain materials ‘personal records’ of a former President.” Am. Historical Ass’n v. Peterson, 876 F.Supp. 1300, 1314 (D.D.C.1995). While that may be true, the D.C. Circuit has not yet blessed it either.”

                YOUR ‘case law’ clearly contradicts your claim.

                WE DID NOT HOLD IN ARMSTRONG I THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD DESIGNATE ANY MATERIAL HE WISHES AS PERSONAL RECORDS.

                “ Some of the language in Armstrong II led another court in this district to comment that “Armstrong II does not necessarily foreclose judicial review of a decision to denominate certain materials ‘personal records’ of a former President.”

                It’s pretty clear your claims are not true.

                1. ““DID pretty close to absolutely say”? No they didn’t. That’s not what they ultimately said. They mused that SOME things were not judicially reviewable and those instances are very narrow. ”

                  Exactly the opposite. They said Govenrment agenciy records are reviewable, WH records are not.

                  Read what they wrote. They are not ambiguous.

                2. You have further shrunk your cites from the DICTA of these decisions – not the holdings. to eliminate the parts that disagree with your idiotic claim.

                  The bright line the courts used is whether the records are of an agency created by congress. The WH is not, the Office of the VP is not.
                  The NSA is.

                  I would note this is much the same line that is used for the APA – though there are specific duties of the executive in the constitution and the APA does not apply to those.

                  That line exists because without it the APA and PRA and nearly all congressional laws regulating the executive would be unconstitutional.

                  Are you saying that Trump’s records are NSA or FDA records, not WH records ? I would note a WH discussion of the FDA is a WH record.

                3. “WE DID NOT HOLD IN ARMSTRONG I THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD DESIGNATE ANY MATERIAL HE WISHES AS PERSONAL RECORDS.”

                  Again critical thinking eludes you.

                  Your cite is correct. They Held in Armstrong that records outside the domain that congress could regulate where within the presidents perogative to do as he pleased without judicial review. Those parts of government and those duties of government created by the constitution in Article II and not shared with congress are outside of congresses ability to regulate.

                  I would note – you keep trying to argue based on the outcome you want, not the decision made, and not the clear constitutional reasons for that decisions.

                  I think we BOTH agree – I hope we do that SOME language of the PRA is totally at odds with the courts decision.
                  Why is that so ? Were the courts “legislating from the bench” ?

                  That argument would be very easy to make – if all you think about is the PRA and the courts decision.
                  It is crystal clear that the courts ignored aspects of the PRA. They gave them little or no weight at all.

                  Why ?
                  There are really only two choices.
                  They were legislating from the bench – reasoning towards the outcome they wanted.
                  Or they were trying to save the PRA from problems of exceding its constitutional scope.

                  Do you have a better reason for the Court clearly ignoring parts of the PRA ?

                  While the courts decisions are clear based on their own words. And those words DO NOT support your argument.

                  Absolutely President Biden can not declare my Tax return his personal property.
                  Absolutely all government records can not be made personal property of the president.

                  You can figure out why the courts drew a line by reading the decision.
                  Or by considering the constitution
                  and amazingly the result is the same.

            2. Put Simply – because you are simple Armstrong and Armstrong II found that the president could not declare agency records personal and outside of judicial review, just because they were arguably also presidential records – as everything produced by an administration is.

              Your cites do not help you. In fact they HARM you. Because no one has claimed Trump’s records are agency records.
              Therefore they are his if he says they are and beyond judicial review.
              And THAT is the actual meaning of Armstrong.

              Absolutely Armstrong limited what the President could declare personal – to only records not subject to congress – i.e. WH Records.

              1. “ Put Simply – because you are simple Armstrong and Armstrong II found that the president could not declare agency records personal and outside of judicial review, just because they were arguably also presidential records – as everything produced by an administration is.”

                Nope. Armstrong I and II found that the president could not declare ANY MATERIAL as personal records. ANY MATERIALS. A narrow reading of this ruling clearly states ANY MATERIALS. This includes records.

                “ Because no one has claimed Trump’s records are agency records.
                Therefore they are his if he says they are and beyond judicial review.
                And THAT is the actual meaning of Armstrong.”

                No John that is not what Armstrong is saying at all. You WANT it to say that but that ‘s not what it’s saying no matter how hard you try to twist it.

                Trump has NOT proven or shown why they are personal records. He has to prove they are in order to clam they are his personal records. He has to show to the court that they meet the definition under the PRA. He’s the one making the claim publicly that they are his personal records.

                NARA had claimed Trump had WH records and Trump claimed they were personal. It’s his burdens to prove they are indeed personal and there’s plenty of evidence by way of thee raid that Trump did have WH records he claims are personal.

                You keep losing the argument to your own evidence John. You keep reading something that is not there because you WANT it to say what you think it should say. Stick to the plain reading of the text before you.

                1. ” Armstrong I and II found that the president could not declare ANY MATERIAL as personal records. ANY MATERIALS. A narrow reading of this ruling clearly states ANY MATERIALS. This includes records.”
                  Correct – They can not declare any material personal. They can not declare my tax return personal. They can not declare NSA records personal.
                  The scope of the unlimited power of the president to declare things personal is essentially WH documents. Not All government documents.
                  I would also note, you are again trying to craft a tortured reading of Dicta. Not the holding.

                2. “Trump has NOT proven”
                  The burdern of proof if you wish to prosecute is on DOJ.

                  Trump has made clear what his defenses will be.

                  There is alot we do not know about both Biden and Trump’s documents.
                  What we do not know MIGHT change conclusions.

                  But for the most part it is not likely that we will learn anything that will make Trumps circusmtances worse.
                  It is not likely we will learn anythign that will make Biden’s better.

                  We have had 6 months for people to come forward with information that Trump documents were being sold, or shared with nefarious people.
                  Or that they were actually in Melania’s intimates or anywhere outside Trump’s presidential office.
                  Nothing has emerged. It appears at this point that Trump documents were entirely inside his ex-presidents officies – the same offices that he used as president to access classified information. And that all or nearly all this information was inside the SCIF.
                  Gigi has ranted about pool boys accessing documents – but so far those stories have not held up.

                  Conversely we have confirmed much of what I have said about Trump with Biden’s disaster.
                  There is a SCIF and ex-VP office in Biden’s DE home that he used as VP. We have no idea what was found there – and properly shouldn’t.
                  Anything in Biden’s SCIF and ex-VP offices is secure – As it that in Trump’s ex-VP offices and SCIF.
                  We have also learned as a result of this that it is routine for presidents to take large numbers of documents with them as they leave office.
                  And that it is routine for presidents to have and continue to access classified documents after leaving office.

                  What is Not Normal, is for this stuff to be smeared all over the place. So far no ex-president – certainly not Trump brought classified documents to a think tank funded by a foreign government. So far no ex-president – certainly not Trump, has had classified documents in the garage with their car. So far no ex-president – certainly not Trump has rented his home – with a SCIF containing god knows what, and ex-VP’s offices to someone who is openly selling influence to foreign governments.

                  Every day there is a new “drip”. A new photo, or new documents found or new information about Biden that has been kept hidden.

                  President Biden has also thrown the spotlight on his son and his shady foreign business dealings.

                  It is possible that Hunter Biden’s foreign dealings are legal. It is not possible that Hunter Biden is someone who should be allowed within 100 miles of classified information.

                  Worse for the Biden’s – what we are told about these documents – if True is that all are in the orbit of the Biden’s influence peddling.
                  Everywhere Hunter was selling influence, VP Biden was collecting classified documents.

                  Now people are starting to look at the Biden’s foreign dealings and actually contemplate them seriously.
                  The Left Wing Bubble media is starting to show pictures or correspondence or video of the Biden syndicate meeting with dodgy people.
                  Some of that in the DE home or Biden Center where these documents were found.

                  We are seeing pictures of Hunter in the Corvette with 2 unidentified people. We are seeing Joe in the DE home meeting with people Hunter was being paid by.

                  The media blockade on the Biden corruption story is lifting.

                  The left of the country is starting to see what the other half of the country has seen for years.

                3. Svelaz – you lost the legal argument long ago.
                  You are beating a dead horse.

                  I do not personally care if the law WAS different – but it is not.
                  Trying to creatively read the legal opinions to mean near the opposite of what they say is not getting you anywhere.
                  You keep trying to torture Dicta to mean the opposite of the holding.

                  And you ignore that courts are not the final authortiy on the reading of the law and constitution – no matter what they conclude.
                  They are the final authority – when they actually follow the law and constitution.

                  When YOU say some decision means X, Your allegedly narrow (actually broad) reading must have a logical basis in the law and constitution.

                  I have repeatedly told you that the basis for the decisions that you do not like is the courts efforts to save the laws from being unconstitutional.
                  Congress does not have the power to regulate the near exclusive domain of the president.
                  The courts have bent over backwards to save laws that violate the presidents constitutional powers. They have done so by excluding the domain of nearly unlimited constitutional presidential power from the law. The alternative is to find the law unconstitutional.
                  Is that what you would prefer ?

                  You only have two choices – the PRA survives – if the President has limitless power to exclude things from it – within the presidents exclusive domain. Or the PRA is unconstitutional. I would have prefered the courts find the PRA unconstitutional. I would prefer that the courts quite trying to fix unconstitutional laws by narrowing them in ways at odds with their plain language. We have a congress. When they pass a law that is in part unconstitutional – it is not the courts job to save the parts of the law that are constitutional. Legislation is crafted as a whole. There is no means of knowing what would have passed if Congress knew ahead of time that half the law would be nullified as unconstitutional by the courts.
                  Strike laws with unconstitutional provisions – unless Congress explicitly makes those provisions severable. Congress then has the power to return to the issue and construct a law that is constitutional – or to change the constitution.

                  But I do not have what I want.

                  You are not able to grasp that You do not have what you want either. Worse still you are not able to grasp that what you want does not work.

                  If you can not explain how your “narrow” – but actually broad, read of the Dicta in Armstrong, was constructed as it is to conform with the constitution and the constitutonal parts of the law – then you do not understand what the Court is saying.

                  The court did not make up out of thin air what the president Can and can not make personal.
                  It is obvious they did not follow YOUR claim as to the plain text of the law – Why ? Why did they do as your claimed ?

                  It is inarguable that the courts found that presidents can chose what is personal and what is not – in some domain. And that their choice of what is personal and what is not – within that domain is unreviewable.
                  So what is that Domain ? You refuse to answer that.

                  Why did the courts essentially gut the PRA within a domain – that you refused to identify.

                  I have provided a reason – because if the PRA actually limits the power of the President in the WH, it violates the constitution.

                  If you think there is a better reason and a batter domain for the court to have narrowed the scope of the PRA – provide it.

                  But just ranting that the courts said something different from what the clearly said, for reasons that you will not provide and that appear arbitrary with no basis in law or constitution – that is nonsense.

                  If as you falsely claim – there are multiple ways to read the Dicta in Armstrong – the CORRECT reading is the one that is not arbitrary, one that has a constitutional and legal basis.

                  Armstrong did not limit the PRA ambiguously without reason.

            3. I would further note that the Presidents power to declassify is not judicially reviewable, and unlike his determination that records are personal is NOT limited to WH records.

              1. “ I would further note that the Presidents power to declassify is not judicially reviewable, and unlike his determination that records are personal is NOT limited to WH records”

                Yeah declassifying records is not judicially reviewable. But there still needs to be a record that records were indeed declassified. There is a process. Simply declaring them to be is not enough. This applies to Wh records Trump must prove records he claims to be personal. Meet the definition under the PRA. The courts say that there are certain records that are OBVIOUSLY personal and they don’t require judicial review. But those that are suspect CAN be subject to judicial review.

                1. “But there still needs to be a record that records were indeed declassified.”
                  Correct, but the record only needs to be evidence of any action by the president that requires the declassification to avoid violating the espionage act – because the president can not as president violate the espionage act.

                  transfering or ordering the transfer of Classifed documents to his home at the end of his term – is sufficient.
                  Removing classified binders is sufficient.
                  Giving classified documents or information to someone not cleared is sufficient.
                  Verbally saying these are not classified is sufficient.

                  “There is a process.”
                  There is no process in the constitution, and congress can not impose a process on the president, therefore the only process is that which the president creates, and that does not apply to the president.

                  “Simply declaring them to be is not enough.”
                  After the fact – no. Before the fact, yes.

                  “This applies to Wh records Trump must prove records he claims to be personal.”
                  Nope.
                  “Meet the definition under the PRA.”
                  Nope and the courts explicitly rejected that .

                  “The courts say that there are certain records that are OBVIOUSLY personal and they don’t require judicial review. But those that are suspect CAN be subject to judicial review.”
                  Not what the courts said. In fact obviously not what the courts said. YOUR argument requires humans to make a decision based on criteria that are OBVIOUSLY not bright line. According to YOUR own description of presidential records the Branch Tapes are presidential records.
                  Yet Jackson found that NARA does not have the authority to send guess the president.

                  “The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff’s claim is not redressable
                  NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,”
                  NARA does not have the tapes in question,
                  and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.
                  In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff’s alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff’s characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.”

            4. Can you READ ?
              Your own Cites prove you are wrong.

              YOU have tried to claim that the Trump records are OBVIOUSLY presidential records.
              And then cited an opinion that says

              “We held that those decisions that involve materials that are truly presidential records are immune from judicial review. ”

              So make up your mind – Do Trump’s records fit the definition of Presidential records – and therefore the President can declare then to be personal without judicial review, or are you trying to claim they are agency records ?

              Your stumbling over your own arguments.

              1. “ YOU have tried to claim that the Trump records are OBVIOUSLY presidential records.
                And then cited an opinion that says

                “We held that those decisions that involve materials that are truly presidential records are immune from judicial review. ”

                No John I didn’t say that. I said that the Trump records THAT are obviously presidential records.

                YOU are not reading the whole thing John. Citing part of the entire paragraph robs it of it’s context. Which is what you are clearly trying to do. Cite the WHOLE paragraph.

                “ The Armstrong I opinion does not stand for the unequivocal proposition that all decisions made pursuant to the PRA are immune from judicial review…. [W]e held that those decisions that involve materials that are truly presidential records are immune from judicial review. We did not hold in Armstrong I that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise “virtually complete control” over it, notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of “presidential records” in the PRA.”

                I’ve already proved that most of your claims have been false. You have acknowledged that in passing on your long running “rebuttals”.

                You just keep finding different ways to change the narrative to avoid the obvious fact that your argument is not sound. It’s based on wishing it means what you want instead of what it actually says.

                1. I have read the whole thing.
                  Unlike you are am not trying hard to get the Dicta to contradict the holding

                  You have lost this argument – repeatedly in numerous ways.

                  Further it is increasingly becoming irrelevant.

                  Trump did not have classified documents in a private foriegn funded think thank.
                  He did not have them in cardboard boxes in his garage by his car.
                  He did not have that scattered accross many residences tucked in corners.

                  The Trump docs were in a SCIF in ex-presidential offices controlled by the Secret Service.

                  Biden had a SCIF and ex-VP’s office and that is not where he kept these.

                  Trump was not selling influence all accross the globe.
                  Trump sells Condo’s and Hotel Rooms and Golf Outings.

                  Previously you have tried to argue that Trump profited from his govenrment service.

                  You failed in that argument – but lets assume you had not.

                  Selling Secret Service agents hotel rooms at high prices is not selling the access and power of government.

                  You have admitted that the Biden’;s were selling Influence. i.e. they were selling the ability to alter the decisions and actions of government.

                  They were selling the ability to have the Vice PResident of th united states tell a foriegn country to fire a prosecutor or lose a billion in aide.

        2. You presume that Trump is required to Win every claim he makes with Cannon or anywhere.

          As I keep noting – and you ignore.
          Trump is claiming innocence.
          Trump has atleast half a dozen ways to prevail in that claim.
          He does nto have to win every point.
          He does not even have to make every argument at every level.

          I have no doubt there was a holy war among Trump’s lawyers over the Cannon case.

          Trump CHOSE to argue SOME of his points in a CIVIL Case where the burden was on him.
          If the goal is to avoid prosecution that is a HUGE mistake.
          If the Goal is to win a political conflict that strategy may be significantly better.

          No criminal defense attorney on the planet would have told Trump to file a civil lawsuit.

          While the 11th Ct of appeals decided wrongly – they can be forgiven because they are correct – issues regarding Warrants, searches and seizures are NORMALLY dealt with later at a criminal level. What they got wrong was their idiotic position that they CAN NOT be dealth with as a civil matter. If you can not sue to enforce a right – you do not have that right.

          Regardless, in terms of criminal prosecution – the 11th crt of appeals did Trump a favor.
          In terms of politics they screwed him.

          Regardless. Trump is not required to make every or any arguments in front of Cannon.
          The only arguments that Cannon decides are those that are placed before her.

          I beleive Trump’s lawyers chose NOT to challenge the classification of documents in the Cannon case.
          If they did not – she is NOT in a position to DECIDE they are or are not classified.
          She is obligated to ASSUME they are for the purposes of the rest of the case.
          Trump is still able to make other arguments and possibly prevail.

          The Cannon case was not all or nothing for Trump – it was potentially all or nothing for DOJ.
          Losses by DOJ on issues are not reversable.

          If Trump actually argued in front of Cannon the docs are not classified – and lost.
          He is Still free to make the same argument again in a criminal court.
          If DOJ loses an argument – they are done.

          It is likely that Trump’s lawyers strongly adviced him NOT to file a civil case.
          Because even though he gets to re-argue the same points – with a much more favorable burden of proof – they Governmnet has the burden and it is high in a criminal case, there is not a judge in the world that is not going to be heavily influenced by a civil decision against Trump.

          Put differently the OJ case is rare. It is very rare to find civil liability and not criminal liability. For OJ the order made that outcome more likely.

          But Trump’s lawyers knew a loss on any issue would make winning in a criminal case harder.

          1. “ Trump CHOSE to argue SOME of his points in a CIVIL Case where the burden was on him.
            If the goal is to avoid prosecution that is a HUGE mistake.
            If the Goal is to win a political conflict that strategy may be significantly better.”

            So you admit your past claims that Trump does not have to prove anything is wrong. Now, you’re waffling by saying ‘some’ of his points while avoiding the fact that it’s *the* point. He iS trying to avoid prosecution by doing what he’s always done. Delay, obfuscate, and file, and re-file frivolous arguments. That patter has a already been identified by the courts that deal with trump and judges are having none of it.

            “ No criminal defense attorney on the planet would have told Trump to file a civil lawsuit.”

            Trump doesn’t listen to attorneys. He does what he wants and that’s why he’s in so much legal trouble. That’s why the best and most competent attorneys refuse to work with him. It was very clear when they were filing ridiculous claims. Even Judge Cannon had to coax Trump’s lawyers to filing better or more cogent claims.

            “ As I keep noting – and you ignore.
            Trump is claiming innocence.”

            He’s in a civil suit, not a criminal case. He can’t claim innocence when he hasn’t been charged with a crime yet. He’s claiming a right to the documents that are not his to keep. That is not claiming ‘innocence’. He has the burden of proof to show to the government that they belong to him and he has never done that. If he does he will certainly lose and he knows that. All he’s doing is wasting time and ‘fightin’ so he has something to show to his supporters that he’s “fighting for his rights” when the law clearly says he is wrong.

            “ Regardless. Trump is not required to make every or any arguments in front of Cannon.
            The only arguments that Cannon decides are those that are placed before her.”

            Yes he is, because the case before Cannon was about who those documents belonged to. Trump claimed they were his and he never proved that his claims were supported by the PRA. The DOJ showed they had the law on their side and Cannon went out of her way to help Trump by doing everything he asked including appointing a special master. That certainly backfired spectacularly when he learned the special master ordered trump to prove that those documents belonged to him. Instead of doing that Trump ran back to Cannon to squelch the order because he knew he wouldn’t be able to. Cannon not surprisingly accommodated his request.

            “ If Trump actually argued in front of Cannon the docs are not classified – and lost.
            He is Still free to make the same argument again in a criminal court.
            If DOJ loses an argument – they are done.”

            No. The DOJ can still appeal the decision. They have done it before when they went to the 11th circuit.

            “ It is likely that Trump’s lawyers strongly adviced him NOT to file a civil case.”

            They did do that. They were telling him to turn over the documents and cooperate to minimize his legal exposure. But as we all know Trump DOES NOT LISTEN TO HIS LAWYERS. That’s what keeps getting him in the predicaments he blames everyone else for except himself.

            “ Because even though he gets to re-argue the same points – with a much more favorable burden of proof – they Governmnet has the burden and it is high in a criminal case, there is not a judge in the world that is not going to be heavily influenced by a civil decision against Trump.”

            The government can use Trump’s prior claims and his filings in civil court as evidence against him. The government already has enough proof as it is. A judge must consider all evidence including the results of a civil decision against Trump. The reality is Trump’s arguments are very weak and his lawyers know this. His biggest problem is the he keeps shooting his mouth off. For example just yesterday he put out a statement saying he took classified folders because he thought they were a cool thing to have. That is admissible in court. The longer Trump keeps making stupid statements like that the deeper the legal hole will be.

            1. “So you admit your past claims that Trump does not have to prove anything is wrong”
              Nope.

              It is literally true.
              There is no legal requirement for anyone anywhere ever to prove anything.

              This is YOUR nonsense.

              Someone charged with a crime has ZERO burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the government.
              The only reason a criminal defendent puts on a case at all – if they do, is to undermine any proof offered by the prosecutor.
              If the prosecutor falls short – the defendant must proof NOTHING.

              Civil cases are no different. Neither side is obligated to prove anything.
              But the moving party is likely going to lose if they do not try to prove something.

              Further a Civil case is only on the issues the plantif chooses.
              Trump need not contest whether the documents were classified in Civil court if he does not want to.
              He need not contest whether the documents were his in Civil court.
              He can pick and choose the specific things he seeks to prove in a civil case.
              If he wins – that constrains or even destroy’s the criminal case.
              If he loses, he can re-argue some or all issues with the burden or proof both higher and reversed to the prosecution.

              1. “ It is literally true.
                There is no legal requirement for anyone anywhere ever to prove anything.”

                In a civil case he brought to the court he is certainly required to prove those documents belong to him. IN COURT he is required to prove it if he wants to keep the government from getting them. This is basic law 101.

                “ Someone charged with a crime has ZERO burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the government.”

                Trump hasn’t been charged with a crime. He’s not arguing his case in a CRIMINAL trial. Trump is arguing his case in a CIVIL case.

                Trump is the plaintiff he’s defending himself for the government that is showing the judge Trump has documents that are not his. HE HAS TO PROVE THE GOVERNMENT IS WRONG BY SHOWING THE LAW IS ON HIS SIDE.

                “ Trump need not contest whether the documents were classified in Civil court if he does not want to.
                He need not contest whether the documents were his in Civil court.
                He can pick and choose the specific things he seeks to prove in a civil case.”

                Yes he does. He’s the one claiming the documents are his and he has to prove to the court that they are. He has to prove the government is wrong and that requires him to show the court that he has a right them by citing the law. He has not been able to do that because he can’t prove it according to the PRA.

                “ In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence, which means the plaintiff merely needs to show that the fact in dispute is more likely than not”

                https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof

                The evidence Trump needs to prove the documents are his is to use the documents and prove to the judge that the government does not have a right to them. Trump doesn’t want to do that because he knows the evidence will not support his claim. Trump said he declassified the documents meaning they could all be used as evidence proving his claim. However he needs to prove to the court that the documents are indeed declassified. Problem is trump has been claiming in public that he did that. But in court he cannot do that because it would expose his lying which will severely undermine his case.

                Trump had the burden of proof. Not the government. You really, really, really don’t understand how the law works and how courts work. You‘ve made that crystal clear in these arguments.

                As usual you have not provided anything to back up your assertions except pure talk. That’s why you keep losing these long winded arguments.

                1. “In a civil case he brought to the court he is certainly required to prove those documents belong to him.”
                  Incorrect.
                  ” IN COURT he is required to prove it if he wants to keep the government from getting them.”
                  Correct, those are not the same.

                  I would note that the 11th cir ct of appeals is the reason the latter never happened.

                  At the same time there were several other issues both legal and political being addressed by the Civil case.

                  The most important aspect of the Civil case was that Trump was going on the offensive.

                  That is what innocent people do – or atleast what we like to beleive innocent people do.

                  Trump made it clear both in the public statements you keep attacking, and at court that these documents are HIS,
                  That he wants them back.

                2. “As usual you have not provided anything to back up your assertions except pure talk.”
                  And facts, and law, and court opinions.

                  Svelaz, you are not losing these arguments because I am brilliant.
                  You are losing them because you are wrong.

                  I do not like the law or constitution as it is. Though the actual law and constitution are better than your nonsense.

                  I would be happy to argue that things SHOULD be different.
                  But we start from what they are.

                  The courts SHOULD have found the PRA unconstitutional.
                  Instead the constrained its scope to force it to be constitutional.

                  I honestly do not care if all WH documents without exception are government property and the NARA has the power to confiscate them.
                  That would require changing the constitution, and I am not sure how to do that without unintended effects.

                  I honestly do not care if Presidential power to declassify is limited. Though I can not conceive of a way to change the constitution to make that possible that would still work.

                  But the people – including presidents are entitled to rely on the law and constitution as it is.

                  Trump is entitled to act within the scope allowed him by JW v NARA.
                  He is entitled to rely on that.

                  He is entitled to act with the understanding that presidents have unlimited declassification authority.

                3. You are correct that in a civil case filed by Trump after the DOJ has STOLEN his property that if Trump wants it back the burden of proof is on him.

                  But that is only BECAUSE the DOJ acted lawlessly.
                  While documents were in Trump’s posession the burden of proof was on NARA, DOJ, FBI.
                  That is why they refused to go to court – they would have lost.

                  Further should this ever enter a criminal courtroom – the burden of proof will be on DOJ – and it will be even higher.
                  The documents are presumptively Trumps – because they were taken from his property and he continues to assert they are his.

                  DOJ will have to prove they are not personal documents – and it will have to do so in the world of Armstrong, Armstrong II, and JW v NARA.
                  DOJ will have to prove that documents remain classified – and it will have to do so in a world where merely moving the documents from the WH to MAL during the transition declassifies them.
                  And if and only iff DOJ proves they are still classified DOJ will have to prove they were insecurely handled – and it will have to do so in a world where they never left the confines of the expresidents offices and his SCIF and they will have to prove that with the glaring example of Bumbling Biden. With Photos of Biden holding classified documents framed by a Window.

            2. Your critical thinking abilities are both poor and shallow.

              Is it that hard for you to understand that Trump (or anyone in similar circumstances) can pick and choose what they wish to argue at a civil level ?

              The primary purpose of Trump’s civil case was political.
              Which was quite appropriate given that the entire DOJ/FBI/NARA/WH created mess was obviously political from the start.

              1. “ Your critical thinking abilities are both poor and shallow.

                Is it that hard for you to understand that Trump (or anyone in similar circumstances) can pick and choose what they wish to argue at a civil level ?

                The primary purpose of Trump’s civil case was political.”

                Trump is the one who filed the complaint. He chose to argue against the governments claims. Trump wanted to argue everything. From the FBI planting evidence to claiming he declassified everything. When he did get to court. He refused or couldn’t prove his claims. He demanded a special master and he got it. Only when the special master ordered trump to PROVE he claims did Trump cry foul and sought judge Cannon to prevent it. Trump brought this upon himself. This was not political. It was a poor attempt at trying to argue his case when his own lawyers couldn’t argue what he wanted because they KNEW Trump didn’t have the proof to make his claims .

                I’m not the one who is having difficulty grasping the concept. You have not shown anything to back up your own claims. Not a single thing.

                1. Where is it that you get this nonsense.

                  What Trump says in public is for the public.

                  Trump is not obligated in court to prove what he has claimed in public.

                  Trump is in fact not obligated to prove anything in court.
                  But he is obligated to prove those claims that he wishes to win in THIS court.

                  Not every claim he has made.

                  You claim Trump made every claim in the civil case he made publicly – that is not true.

                  You also claim he could not prove those claims – that is also not true.

                  The court did not even complete inventorying the documents and establishing the DOJ’s and Trump’s claim for each document, before the 11th appealte decided Cannon had no jurisdiction.

                  No decision on the merits or issues was ever made.

                  I would further note that Trump was civily challenging a Government seizure.

                  The government admitted that the documents were in Trump’s possession, and that they took them.
                  A great deal of the burden of proof is on the government.
                  The standard of proof was not as high as in a criminal trial.

                  But it is still on Government.

                  If I sue you for breach of contract, and you admit that you breached the contract, but claim that the breach was justified,
                  Even though I am suing you – the burden of proof is on YOU.

                  There was no question the documents were in Trump’s posession when the FBI took them.

                  A significant part of what the 11th apelate got wrong was that a warrant is ex-parte.
                  It provides the government the oportunite to Seize things.
                  But the reason that we allow ex-parte warrants and government seizures without both sides presenting their case,
                  is because the inability to address all parties claims will occur later.
                  It is unusual – but not unheard of that it occurs civilly.
                  Often the government NEVER files charges and the only way to recover property is through civil suit.

                  Technically is government seizes property and does not take it to a criminal trial, the GOVERNMENT must go to civil court to get an order of posession. A warrant buys the government time. It is not a right of possession – it can not be, it is ex-parte.
                  We are not supposed to do anything final or anything unchallengable ex-parte.

            3. “No. The DOJ can still appeal the decision. They have done it before when they went to the 11th circuit.”
              Actually no. DOJ did not appeal a Cannon decision. They appealed cannon’s jurisdiction.
              DOJ was wrong about that but the 11th appellate screwed the pooch and forgot that we have a 4th and 5th amendment that can be enforced civilally as well as criminally.

              Regardless, Should Trump win in front of Cannon on an issue of Fact – it is almost never reversible.
              Cannon’s decisions of law are all that DOJ is free to appeal and only when they are final.

              The 11th appellate screwed up by the numbers. They decided issues of fact – before there were even hearings on matters of fact, which is so far outside the scope of appellate courts it is ridiculous. They did so against Trump in a context the rules of judicial procedure require that they decide every issue of fact in Trump’s favor – no matter how dubious, and they they made the idiotic move of pretending that since Trump would have the opportunity to address all of this in a criminal trial, that he was not free to do so civilly.

              SCOTUS should have heard Trump’s appeal, but they did not. That is not actually all that surprising.
              The 11th decision has zero precidential value, and I doubt SCOTUS wants to touch this with a 10ft pole.
              I am sure the justices are praying this never comes before them again.
              And that only happens if Trump wins or DOJ drops this.

              Appealate courts are supposed to avoid making decisions when they do not have to.
              The 11tth apelate FAILED at that, SCOTUS avoided a political case, at little cost. If Trump ever faces prosecution by DOJ,
              They will get to address it then.

            4. “The government can use Trump’s prior claims and his filings in civil court as evidence against him. ”
              Only if they actually are evidence against him – which they are not.

              They can not use the failure to make a claim at a lower court against him.
              They are not supposed to be able to use a loss on a claim at a lower court against him. But that only happens in theory not in practice.
              Regardless, there were no findings on Trump’s claims. The 11th appelate decided on jurisdictional grounds.

              “The government already has enough proof as it is.”
              Then you would have it.

              “A judge must consider all evidence including the results of a civil decision against Trump.”
              Results in a civil court are not evidence. Findings of fact – of which there are none are evidence.
              Technically findings of law are mostly inapplicable to criminal court because the standard is not the same.
              Otherwise OJ could not have been sued in Civil court and lost.

              “The reality is Trump’s arguments are very weak and his lawyers know this.”
              Back to mind reading – now his lawyers.

              Trump has about a dozen different ways to win this – should it ever get prosecuted.
              He only needs one.

              “His biggest problem is the he keeps shooting his mouth off.”
              So long as he consistently maintains his innocence he is fine.
              Biden has already admitted guilt twice.

              “For example just yesterday he put out a statement saying he took classified folders because he thought they were a cool thing to have.”
              And what part of that statement is not true ? And what part of that statement is an admission ?
              DOJ made a huge deal over binders without classified contents.
              It is self evident by Trumps collection of Time Magazine covers that he collects personal memorabilia.

              One of the problems with you left wing nuts is that you think every statement you do not like or do not share is proof of a crime.

              I think having classified Document folders is cool. I would be happy to have a bunch.
              I bet you would too.

              “That is admissible in court.”
              Maybe, regardless, it is exculpatory not inculpatory so who cares ?
              Addmitting to taking empty classified document binders is not a crime.

              “The longer Trump keeps making stupid statements like that the deeper the legal hole will be.”

              That advice would be better given to Biden.

              Biden is in ZERO legal Jephardy – not because he has not committed a crime – obviously he has.
              But because there is zero chance he will be prosecuted. There never was.
              It is not even likely he will be impeached. I do not think Republicans want Biden gone.
              He is a F’up as president and they are better off saddling democrats with him.
              It is more likely Democrats will push Biden to resign.
              But that needs to happen Soon. Harris is a complete disaster. If she is to have any hope in 2024, she must take office soon and have some real accomplishments – like working with Republicans. Fat Chance.
              But if Democrats are dumping Biden and Harris, they need to open the field SOON.
              Last minute entries mean losing.

              But Biden has just ended Trump’s very limited legal jeophardy.

        3. You constantly make arguments that are light years away from being resolved.

          It is self evident throughout this process that DOJ has been deliberately trying to Game this to get favorable decisions in ex-parte conditions and to avoid any actual test of their case in court.

          Reinhardt made innumerable errors. But in all probability DOJ had enough to get a warrant. Reinhardt never should have allowed the Shock and Awe approach he granted. But that is a different issue. and the Warrant he granted was way way way over broad and likely an unconstitutional general warrant. But those are separate issues.

          But it is complete idiocy on your part to presume that because a warrant was granted that ANY desputed issue was actually decided.

          A warrant request is ex-parte, and we do not decide legal issues based on only One sides arguments.

          And one of the big problems you have with the Trump case – and now the comparison to Biden, is that it is self evident that DOJ/FBI/NARA has bent over backwards to Frame Trump – to game the system – They Skipped addressing ANYTHING on the merits in a court at every single oportunity, instead seeking to escalate and utiliaze Ex-Parte legal processes to avoid any challenge on the merits.

          Their strategy is brilliant. It is also unconstutional and at some Point SCOTUS should and likely will B***h slap them for exactly that.

          Conversely we see the opposite with Biden. While it was not necescary to have a SWAT raid of Biden (as it was not of Trump).
          It actually was necescary to remove Biden’s lawyers from this process entirely and to have DOJ/FBI agents – searching IMMEDIATELY all places Biden might have left classified documents.

          This favoritism to Biden is actually working to his Harm. Biden has made several statements that are legal admissions.
          By going after Trump so hard he has politically deprived himself of the arguments Trump has made.
          Biden can not claim the documents are declassified or his – partly because the standard for VP’s is higher, Partly because He can nto make the same arguments Trump has made without being an even bigger hypocrite.

          So he has forced himself into this “inadvertent” claim – which is an admission. If you posses classified documents you have a duty to protect them. The espionage act addresses “inadvertent” – and it is a crime.

          We now have reports – I beleive confirmed by DOJ that DOJ ordered the FBI to stand down in the document search.
          That was both a legal and political mistake. We now have a number of Biden attorney’s without security clearances who have found classified documents. Technically that is a crime. Worse they actually went looking for Classified documents. We all know this was done to save face.
          And we all know these lawyers are not getting prosecuted – neither is Biden. But this made things legally worse not better.
          Further all these lawyers are now witnesses – they can no longer represent Biden – which is why the WH Lawyer that has a clearance is NOT the one who was actually searching.

          Worse still for Biden these documents were found all over the place.

          Worse still, Biden/DOJ in trying to hide things has created a drip drip drip story, that is never going away.

          The documents all over the place is sucking the Media into the Hunter Biden laptop story and the Biden dealings with China and other bad dudes.

          We now have photos of Hunter Driving the Corvette in 2018. So the obvious question is did Hunter access these files ?

          And Hunter Biden is a Tar Baby – everything that touches him sticks. Did Hunter sell or share documents with bad people ?
          Hunter rented the House were 3 sets of documents were found for between double of 7 times the market rental rate.
          While he was there – where the Chinese or other bad dudes there ? the WH claims there are no visitor logs – because it is a private home.
          But that just reinforces that Biden had classified documents in his PRIVATE HOME – one NOT guarded by Secret Service.

          CNN has finally found the Hunter Biden laptop and started to do stories on it.

          This will go on and on for ever.
          And it will be increasingly obvious that the incredibly reckless person was Biden – Not trump.

          This story is not going away, and it is not going to improve with age.

          This story has created hundreds of new points of exploration of Biden that the media will follow.
          It draws attention to Biden’s foreign links.
          It draws attention to Hunter.
          It draws attention to the disparate treatment by DOJ and the Media.
          It draws attention to Biden’s age.
          It makes it harder to protect him from the Press.
          It causes the media to explore all of those

          Biden and the WH claimed they were advised by DOJ not to discuss this.
          DOJ responded they had said no such thing.

          I have zero doubt that Biden’s lawyers are telling him to shut up.
          But law enforcement NEVER tells targets to be quite.

          1. John B. Say,

            “ It is self evident throughout this process that DOJ has been deliberately trying to Game this to get favorable decisions in ex-parte conditions and to avoid any actual test of their case in court.”

            And yet you provide zero proof of the evidence you speak of. Trump is the one responsible for providing these ex-parte conditions. He’s the one avoiding the court’s need to test his claims by refusing or not being able to provide the proof of his claims. Until there is a criminal trial Trump is the one with the burden of proof. Not the DOJ. Besides the DOJ and NARA and accompanying court opinions from the 11th circuit AND your own citing of case law have provided the evidence that they are correct.

            “ Reinhardt made innumerable errors. But in all probability DOJ had enough to get a warrant. Reinhardt never should have allowed the Shock and Awe approach he granted.”

            Yet again, you provide zero proof of what those errors are. When you couch your assertions with “probability”. “Likely”, after the affidavit was made public and showed why the warrant was valid. NOBODY in trumps team contested the validity of the warrant. They didn’t challenge it in court. Trump made a bunch of claims publicly, but never made them in court which means he didn’t have the evidence to back up his BS.

            “ But it is complete idiocy on your part to presume that because a warrant was granted that ANY desputed issue was actually decided.

            A warrant request is ex-parte, and we do not decide legal issues based on only One sides arguments.”

            The fact that a warrant was issued is admissible evidence that Trump did NOT cooperate and engaged in obstruction when it was discovered that he lied to the DOJ. That’s a pretty serious issue that will be included in any criminal trial as part of the prosecution’s evidence.

            “ And one of the big problems you have with the Trump case – and now the comparison to Biden, is that it is self evident that DOJ/FBI/NARA has bent over backwards to Frame Trump – to game the system – They Skipped addressing ANYTHING on the merits in a court at every single oportunity, instead seeking to escalate and utiliaze Ex-Parte legal processes to avoid any challenge on the merits.”

            John, clearly you’re not arguing by the facts. You’re arguing from ignorance. You’re making accusations without a shred of evidence. The DOJ/FBI/NARA all gave Trump plenty of opportunities to resolve the issue quietly for 18 months. Trump’s own lawyers tried in vain to convince him to cooperate early and he refused constantly, filing complaints, motions, and throwing all kinds of obstacles while the DOJ/NARA were bending over backwards to give him every opportunity to do the right thing. They didn’t skip anything John that is just pure BS from you. They had the law, the facts, and the evidence that they gave Trump multiple opportunities to resolve the issue. The warrant was issued partly because the DOJ was able to prove that NARA did give Trump multiple chances to resolve the issue and Trump chose to jerk them around until they had enough. 18 months John.

            “ Their strategy is brilliant. It is also unconstutional and at some Point SCOTUS should and likely will B***h slap them for exactly that.”

            LOL! Yet again, you don’t articulate why exactly was unconstitutional. SCOTUS has already made it’s opinion known. SCOTUS has on multiple occasions refused Trump’s requests to intervene.

            “ Conversely we see the opposite with Biden. While it was not necescary to have a SWAT raid of Biden (as it was not of Trump).
            It actually was necescary to remove Biden’s lawyers from this process entirely and to have DOJ/FBI agents – searching IMMEDIATELY all places Biden might have left classified documents.”

            Why would Biden’s lawyers needed to be removed? Trump’s lawyers weren’t. Trump’s lawyers already had a reputation of not letting the FBI look around in boxes and files. Biden’s lawyers are fully cooperating AND turning over documents. That’s not what Trump’s lawyers did. The DOJ had no need to be suspicious of Biden’s lawyers since they were cooperating. Tump’s other properties should have been raided when the DOJ found out trump lied. By your logic you should have been calling for the DOJ to raid the other properties.

            By the way the raid on MAL was not “shock and awe”. The FBI noticed Trump’s lawyers in advance and they were expected. Even Trump witnessed the raid thru CCTV cameras.

            “ Biden can not claim the documents are declassified or his – partly because the standard for VP’s is higher, Partly because He can nto make the same arguments Trump has made without being an even bigger hypocrite.”

            You have confirmed Biden can declassify documents. He’s standard is no different than the president’s if he is the originator.

            1. “And yet you provide zero proof of the evidence you speak of”
              Do you know what “self evident” means ?

              Oh, BTW I was listening to Glenn Greenwald on Megyn Kelley today.
              They laid out a substantial part of my argument here – as well as addressing the serious problems Biden has, why they are more serious than Trump, Why Trump is home free, as well as many other issues – including Brazil, and why CNN will fail even if they put on John Stewart or Bill Mahr to deal with Gutfeld. And why the least onesided major outlet today is Fox – that HAS actually attacked republicans.

              But the big revalation – atleast to me, was that BOTH claim that the cource for all the MAL Trump leaks was not the FBI, not DOJ but Garland himself. And that is is widely known arround DC and in the media.

              I do not accept that is a proven fact – YET, but Greenwald is one of the best investigative reporters there is in this area.

              So that is another area for the House to investigate.

              Going to be fun.

            2. “Trump is the one responsible for providing these ex-parte conditions. He’s the one avoiding the court’s need to test his claims by refusing or not being able to provide the proof of his claims.”

              No he is not.

              NARA was free to go to court to get documents returned.
              That is the normal process.

              They did not.

              Attny Bray was free to go to court if he thought his subpeona was not honored.

              But from begining to end NARA, DOJ FBI, the WH sought ex-parte processes where Trump would not have an oportunity to make his case.

              Todate the ONLY legal oportunity Trump has had has been his civil suite – and YOUR 11th appelate anded that denying him the opportunity to make his arguments.

              You bemoan his public comments – but he has been denied the opportunity to actually argue his case in court.

              That is a common theme with the left.

              Laches, premature, too late, mootness, Standing, and now we can add lack of jurisdiction to the long list of legal games the courts and left have played to deny Trump his day in court.

              Those of you on the left are Terrified of Trump and Trump’s lawyers.

              When Trump gets infront of anything less than a radically biased judge and jury – he wins.
              Might be because he is right.

              1. “ NARA was free to go to court to get documents returned.
                That is the normal process.

                They did not.”

                NARA DID go to court. That’s why there was a subpoena.

                “ But from begining to end NARA, DOJ FBI, the WH sought ex-parte processes where Trump would not have an oportunity to make his case.”

                Trump had 18 months. He had no excuse when he was served with as subpoena and ultimately with a search warrant. He had 18 months John. He was given multiple opportunities to resolve the issue. Trump spent the majority of the time obstructing and delaying the process. He had no excuse in the end.

                You have been enabling and condoning Tump’s behavior and are now making excuses for his self inflicted problems and blame them on the left. You’r being disingenuous and dishonest.

                1. “NARA DID go to court. That’s why there was a subpoena.”

                  Nope, a US attorney in the J6 Grand Jury subpeona’d the documents claiming they were evidence.

                  A subpeona is not a order of posession. It is an order to bring evidence the the GJ.

                  While NARA may have had something to do with that behind the scenes,
                  That was not a legitimate process to get a court to give you posession.

                  Further there is no judge’s signature on the subpeona. NARA did not EVER go to COURT.
                  DOJ did not EVER go to Court.

                  NARA/DOJ/FBI/Biden did everything possibel to avoid an actual court hearing in which Trump would be able to argue that the documents were his and wer declassified.

                  To this day Trump has been denied the opportunity to do so.

                  His property was seized and he has not had due process.

                  THAT is actual obstruction.

            3. “You have confirmed Biden can declassify documents. He’s standard is no different than the president’s if he is the originator.”
              That is correct, so lets actually find out what these documents are. Trump’s and Biden’s.
              Oddly we know slightly more about Biden’s – because Biden’s lawyers were allowed to search and they can talk – assuming of course we beleive them.

              VP’s can also declare papers Personal – but only a tiny subset of what president’s can.

              I would note that it appears we have very similar problems with Biden – many Doc’s in Classified folder, but also some folders without docs and some docs without folders.

              And that makes it more complex to establish whether something was declassified.
              Trump has argued that he took classified binders “because it is cool” so you claim.
              Did Biden ? He has not said that.
              Trump has argued he actually declassified Docs – and Docs out of binders suggests though does not prove that is true.
              Trump taking a document out of a binder while president is sufficient to be a declassifiying act.
              The same would be true of Biden FOR DOCS HE CLASSIFED. Trump can declassify anything.

              But Biden has not claimed that.

              Nor can he. The moment he mirrors Trump’s claims Trump is off the hook – but Biden is not.
              Because Biden has to establish the Docs were classified by him.

              President Biden could declassify these docs trivially – but like Trump he can not do so telepathically.
              Biden has not been to the Biden Center since the election. Nor has he been to these DE homes as I understand.

            4. I am perfectly happy to apply the same law in the same way to Biden as Trump,

              But there is no Biden as President claim here. If there Biden can raise it. He can say that he declassified the Biden Center or othe Docs As president BEFORE they were moved into the locations they were found.

              But that is a testable claim so it is not likely coming from Biden.

              You keep accusing Trump of lying for protesting his innocence.
              An actual lie would be saying the Biden Center docs were declassified by Biden as PResident when they arrived at BC before Biden was president.

              Regardless, I am prepared to consider that these are Biden Doc’s that he can declassify and that he can claim as personal.
              But Biden has to make that claim – and he has not.

              What he has done is admit that he was negligent.

        4. You state as facts many things that are either not proven or absolutely false.

          I have gone through them all before.
          Nothing has changed.
          They are still not facts.

          1. “ You state as facts many things that are either not proven or absolutely false.”

            Nope, you didn’t prove anything. What you did do is prove yourself wrong. Your own citations showed your claims to be wrong. You’ve been making claims without supporting them except citing “case law” you’ve never quoted relevant parts that would support your claims or even bothered to link to them. I’ve been doing all your homework and finding out that YOUR own “evidence” contradicts your claims. You only think nothing has changed is because you have not proven your claims to be true. I have refuted your claims with the “evidence” YOU provided.

            1. “Nope, you didn’t prove anything.”
              I have proven several things.

              But neither I nor Trump have an obligation to prove anything.
              I am not alleging a crime – You are.

              “What you did do is prove yourself wrong. Your own citations showed your claims to be wrong.”
              Please read YOUR OWN citations. The only one who has proven themselves wrong is YOU.

              Absolutely NSA records which are also Presidential Records are subject to Judicial Review.
              That is what the cites YOU provide prove.
              Absolutely NSA records which are also Presidential Records can not be declared personal records.

              That has no applicability to Trump V. DOJ.

              ” You’ve been making claims without supporting them except citing “case law” you’ve never quoted relevant parts”
              The revelavant parts are the HOLDING. I cited that repeatedly, the rest is dicta. And you have not even read the Dicta that YOU cite as that undermines your argument.

              “that would support your claims or even bothered to link to them.”
              I do not need to. The holding is sufficient. But thank you for the Dicta that ALSO supports my argument.

              “I’ve been doing all your homework and finding out that YOUR own “evidence” contradicts your claims.”
              CAN YOU READ ? You do not even seem to be able to read YOUR OWN cites.

              I am trying to figure out why you are still arguing. YOUR OWN cites destroy your argument.

        5. “it’s telling that you can’t articulate exactly what that legal jeopardy is”

          Biden’s legal jeophardy is near zero. He is a sitting president. he can not be indicted.
          He can only be impeached. I actually doubt that House republicans are going to rush to impeach him.
          The GOP is best served by drawing this out as long as possible, not by impeaching Biden.
          In fact they look politically better if they investigate this for two full years but do NOT impeach.
          Finally, he can pardon himself.

          But even ignoring all of that. This is just not going to lead to prosecution – Just as Hillaries much worse malfeasance did not.
          But it does thoroughly undermine any case against Trump.
          Even the FACT that YOU are now fixated on a baseless claim of obstruction is an admission that the Espionage case against Trump has collapsed.

          Trump was never actually in much legal jeophardy. The whole purpose of this was political.
          The left is terrified of a Trump/Biden rematch.

          The left is also terrified of a 2nd Trump term more than anything in the world.
          And will do ANYTHING to stop that.

          And that is a problem – People KNOW that you will do ANYTHING to stop Trump.
          They KNOW that you will lie Cheat and rig elections.

          https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/01/12/what_caused_the_political_hysteria_148719.html

          1. “ The GOP is best served by drawing this out as long as possible, not by impeaching Biden.
            In fact they look politically better if they investigate this for two full years but do NOT impeach.
            Finally, he can pardon himself.”

            That’s all this is about. It’s not about what he did. It’s about weakening the president politically by burden of constant investigations. The difference is that the investigations against Trump were largely self inflicted. The constant lying, false claims and corruption. All of them didn’t bother Republicans. But now that they have some semblance of power they are going to waste it by doing another round of Benghazi style hearings and investigations. This is not about accountability. It’s about petty vengeance over the treatment of Trump despite the fact that he brought it upon himself because of his stupidity.

            “ But it does thoroughly undermine any case against Trump.
            Even the FACT that YOU are now fixated on a baseless claim of obstruction is an admission that the Espionage case against Trump has collapsed.”

            LOL!, no it hasn’t. The obstruction charge is still in play. Trump keeps shooting his mouth off in public which is admissible in court

            “ Trump was never actually in much legal jeophardy. The whole purpose of this was political.”

            Trump was always in legal jeopardy. The truly sad reality is that it was all self inflicted. His own lawyers including White House counsel have tried mightily to prevent trump from doing stupid things, constantly. Because he refuses to listen he keeps getting in deeper and deeper trouble. This isn’t political, it’s purely because Trump is incapable of accepting responsibility for his own screw ups and failures. He truly believes he’s above the law and that’s why he does things that he thinks do not apply to him. That’s the nature of a malignant narcissist. He thinks he can’t be held accountable for anything he does and many like you enable it because it’s political.

            “ And that is a problem – People KNOW that you will do ANYTHING to stop Trump.
            They KNOW that you will lie Cheat and rig elections.”

            You can say the same about the right. They will go to any length to lie, cheat and rig elections so he can win again. Kari Lake is till trying to overturn the election in Arizona despite having not proof of her claims. She has been lying and trying to cheat her way into office. The right loves to project their own goals unto others. Kari has shown that quite clearly.

            1. “That’s all this is about. It’s not about what he did. It’s about weakening the president politically by burden of constant investigations.”
              Absolutely – YOU created the Game.

              “The difference is that the investigations against Trump were largely self inflicted.”
              Nope they were purely political.
              Honestly – are you still going to say there was anything but Politics to the Collusion Delusion ?
              In the end the WHOLE THING was Hillary Clinton.

              “The constant lying, false claims and corruption.”
              Still waiting for evidence.

              “All of them didn’t bother Republicans.”
              Not a republican. The factors driving my voting against Trump.
              I am a libertarian – not a republican. Gary Johnson and Jo Jo Johnson were better choices.
              I do not like McCain as a politician. But he is a genuine war hero, and Trump’s attacks on his military service really bothered me.
              Trump’s role in the Central Park Five bothered me.
              Trump’s treatment of Women bothered me.
              Though I do not beleive a single one of the “rape” claims against him – Tara Reade is far more credible.
              Even Blaisley Ford who was poor was more credible.
              There is still no doubt DJT is a misogynist.

              Those are probably the big issues.
              I Never for a moment beleived the collusion delusion – that was stupid.
              As I have said repeatedly – Trump was by far the best president in the 21st century and that unfortunately is not saying much.

              As to constantly lying – have you listened to Biden – today ? 30 years ago ?
              As to Corruption – have you actually looked at Biden ?
              As to False Claims – have you looked at Biden ? Or your generic Democrat ?

            2. “But now that they have some semblance of power they are going to waste it by doing another round of Benghazi style hearings and investigations. This is not about accountability. It’s about petty vengeance over the treatment of Trump despite the fact that he brought it upon himself because of his stupidity.”

              Nope, The house has two fundamental jobs – pass a budget, and executive oversight – that means investigations.
              With government divided there is near zero chance of meaningful legislation – and that is a GOOD thing.

              There were going to be investigations no matter what – just as there always are – democrats of republicans.
              What those investigations are of, is dictated by the behavior of the Executive ALWAYS.

              Further it is Biden’s stepping on his own Dick that has shiften some of the emphasis to favor Trump.
              After the election there was a strong possibility that the GOP would quietly walk away from Trump and Bank DeSantis.
              But Biden’s subsequent blunders have strengthened Trump.

              That is Democrats fault not republicans.

              Regardless, I am very happy at the long list of republican investigations.

              I will be happy to see:
              The IRS defunded.
              The ATF shuttered.
              FBI defunded.
              Many additional 3 letter agencies defunded or even eliminated.
              The patriot act repealed.
              The federal government forcibly removed from policing speech.
              The end to woke government.
              That is not happening this term.
              But the foundations are being laid.

              I am happy with that.

              “The obstruction charge is still in play.”
              That is not an espionage act claim.
              Regardless without an underlying crime – it is DEAD.
              Also – you need actual obstruction – YOU repeatedly make clear you think saying “I am innocent” is obstruction.
              “Trump keeps shooting his mouth off in public which is admissible in court”
              He does. He says over and over in many different ways “I am innocent”
              Biden says “I was incompetent” or “I have an excuse” – not the same as “I AM INNOCENT”
              Worse for you – Biden’s conduct can be compared to Trump’s – and Trump looks both innocent and responsible.

              “Trump was always in legal jeopardy. ”
              Nope.

              “The truly sad reality is that it was all self inflicted.”
              Yes, those of you on the left think that disagreeing with you is a self inflicted wound.
              It is not. It is WHY people vote against you.

              “His own lawyers including White House counsel have tried mightily to prevent trump from doing stupid things, constantly.”
              The trump is incompetent argument is DEAD – Biden has been trying to kill it for 2 years. But he just completely murdered it.

              Nothing Trump has done compares to leaving TS/SCI documents in a garage where Hunter could get at them.
              Nothing Trump has done compares to leaving TS/SCI douments in a Chinese funded think tank.

              “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f— things up.”
              Pres. Obama 2020.

              The Trump incompetence nonsense is DEAD – Biden killed it.
              Move on.

              Absolutely the Trump WH was chaotic – I know those on the left think that is bad.
              I do not.
              Most every instance in Which Trump defered to those purportedly with more experience proved a MISTAKE.
              Trump should not have listened to the Generals in 2017. He wasted a years getting out of Afghanistan.
              There was a well publicized row over that, ultimately they got their way, but lost their careers over it.
              Trump fires people who fail – Biden could learn from that.
              The entire Biden cabinet and sub cabinet is flying Government jest all over.
              Trump fired one Cabinet member for that – after that Only DeVos flew a private Jet HERS, Which sh paid for.
              Others who failed to deliver as president – FIRED.
              I know that is hard for the left to grasp, but if you want competence, you must FIRE people.

              Why are Myorkas and Buttigieg still in office ? They have FAILED repeatedly. Why is KJP still Press secetary.
              Her predicessor was defending a bad administration – KJP is just plain BAD.

              If you can not fire the incompetent – that is what you get.
              These are not assembly line jobs where there is such a thing as “good enough”.
              If you are an appointed executive official – you are either the best – or your gone.
              The Country can not afford anything less than the best.
              Biden’s people are morons. And they are still there.
              Possibly because their failures distract from his.

              Regardless, the Trump is incompetent meme is DEAD.
              Biden has been a piss poor president – the WORST in the 21st century and that is bad.
              And he did not need to be. He could have coasted to success and a great legacy of uniting the country.
              Instead Biden is the most divisive president in history.
              Every claim you have ever made of Trump is True in spades about Biden.

              “Because he refuses to listen he keeps getting in deeper and deeper trouble.”
              Just about every decision Trump made on his own as President has proven excellent.
              The Generals and Bolton were trying to push Trump into war with Iran.
              Trump ALONE called it off at the last minute – CORRECTLY.
              He later Killed Soliamani – which was the right response.

              “This isn’t political, it’s purely because Trump is incapable of accepting responsibility for his own screw ups and failures. ”
              And what were those failures ?
              Peace in the mideast ?
              Arming Ukraine.
              Containing China.
              Containing North Korea.
              Rebuilding alliances in the pacific ?
              Getting NATO to start carrying there own weight ?
              Realigning world energy supplies in a way very favorable to the US.
              You left wing nut idiots do not seem to understand how much it changes the US entanglement in the world
              to be able to meet our own energy needs. No egging mideastern governments and no need to enmesh ourselves in their conflicts.
              Not competing with Europe and China for mideastern oil.

              The Fact that Europeans are not dying by the thousands of freezing right now, is because of the increase in US LNG capability that TRUMP demanded in order to allow Europe to stand up to Putin. And Had Biden continued the same energy Polices and not botched the Afghan withdraw and not spoke stupidly about Ukraine joining NATO there would be no proxy war in ukraine with hundreds of thousands dead.

              Do you understand myriads of people are DEAD because of YOUR stupdi policies ?
              And YOU talk about Trump’s incompetence ?

              The US started no new military conflicts during the Trump administration – the first time since Gerald Ford.

              Democrats are have now fully embraced being the WAR party.
              That the Bush/Cheney warmongers are on the outs in the GOP is one of the best results of Trump.

              A decent economy – that should be just a given. Real wages for the working class rose 4500/year under Trump.
              They have dropped 3500/year under Biden.

              “He truly believes he’s above the law”
              No he just knows the actual law. Which you have established you do not.

              “and that’s why he does things that he thinks do not apply to him.”
              Like what ? Your big claim is that he took classifed Folders ? not documents, but folders ?

              “That’s the nature of a malignant narcissist.”
              Trump is almost certainly a narcisist. Nearly all politicians are.
              The name for maligant narcisits is Sociopath. Trump is not a sociopath.
              I have had multiple sociopaths in my family – they are not like Trump.
              They are actually dangerous. Biden is a narcisist. But not a sociopath.

              “He thinks he can’t be held accountable for anything he does and many like you enable it because it’s political.”
              We hold people accountable politically in free and fair elections – ones in which the alphabet agencies are not rigging the outcome.

              “You can say the same about the right. They will go to any length to lie, cheat and rig elections so he can win again.”
              How so ? Alleging fraud is not lying or cheating. Democrats do that all the time.
              How have republicans “rigged” elections ? By trying to assure that only actual people vote ?
              That only live people vote ?
              that only citizens vote ?

              “Kari Lake is till trying to overturn the election in Arizona despite having not proof of her claims.”
              The AZ election was an absolute disaster. And countrary to your idiocy she has plenty of PROOF.
              She lost at trial because she could not prove INTENT – that is not the legal standard.
              Regardless, she had absolutely no problems proving the election was Botched badly.

              That you are even trying to defend the mess in AZ is ludcrously stupid.
              After the election 76% of all voters though the Lake election was stolen.

              “She has been lying and trying to cheat her way into office.”
              How so ? Do I need to list all the problems in AZ ?
              Subsequent to my fights with you I found that AZ law actually allows one county EB to refuse to certify when another County EB has botched things. Hobbs threatened criminal prosecution to force her wishes. That is extortion. You have already lost that argument.
              She has only been in office breifly and is already screwing up.
              There will with certainty be a recall election this fall.

              ” The right loves to project their own goals unto others.”
              Lake is not the one who botched the election.

              You do not want election challenges – that is easy – follow the law.
              Count the vote on election day.
              Do not make a complete hash of the election.
              Do not threaten people who wont go along with what you want.

              If you can not manage to run an election without screwing up – why should you be governor ?

              “Kari has shown that quite clearly.”
              I would estimate she has about a 30% chance on appeal. Though the Trial went incredibly well despite the wrong legal standard for the verdict.
              You whole “no evidence” claim is absolute garbage. There was plenty of evidence. The judge decided that intent was not proven.
              Regardless, Lake is not going away.
              Lots of people are talking about her as Trump’s VP.
              I think that is a mistake. She is not ready for that yet.
              She is an excellent communicator, a consumate politician, but she must prove that she is actually a competent administrator.
              She may well be, but she has no significant administrative experience.

              Republicans need to avoid a DeSantis Trump bloodbath.
              I do not care which is the GOP candidate in 2024. Absent destroying each other – either will win.
              Democrats have little time to figure out what they are doing.
              Biden is probably out of it.
              He is a long series of Own Goals.

              And it is unlikely to get better

      3. Well said!
        What is most galling about this whole situation is that Biden lies, out in the open, all the time, flagrantly. He even said his son Beau died in Iraq and the media covers it up, doesn’t talk about it when people do find out and lies for him. Meanwhile the media manufactures Trump controversies for the Orc base of Democrats to glom onto and then the Orcs repeat their talking points, Trump is a pathological liar, like its gospel.
        One day they factchecked Trump saying Melania was a beloved first lady and said he LIED. They then added that “lie” to his 200,000 lie list of lies. He said he went somewhere and it was a beautiful day and he had a beautiful time. They fact checked that and said he lied because it was rainy.
        Its so disgusting and insulting.

        1. I honestly have very little problems with Biden’s remarks. I am not rushing arround thrying to claim he is demented or a massive liar – both of which are likely true.

          But some people are that way. Too a large extent Biden has always been as he is as president.
          He tells tall tales, plagerizes, spins yarns naratives. nonsense.

          I have a close friend who is like that. He remains a friend. But I do not trust anything he says. I mostly do not listen to it.
          It is just who he is.

          But I would not elect him president – and I question those who would.

          Trump is not the same as Biden. But he has his own means of speaking, and it is not very precise. I suspect it is part of his political appeal.
          It may even be part of Biden’s.

          Unlike Biden you can trust that Trump will do as he says – that should not suprise anyone. You can not be successful outside of government if people can not trust you. This is part of why real sociopaths are drawn to government (and religion) because these are among the only roles that you can have power without trust.

          Regardless, everything Trump says must be taken with a grain of salt. I doubt Melania is the most beloved first lady ever.
          But she is not hated, and frankly If DJT wants to stay married – which I think he does, he had BETTER say she is the most wonderful woman ever.

          Regardless, it is not a lie to make inaccurate predictions about the future. It is a reason to question ones ability to make decisions about the future.

          It is not a lie to be less than perfectly precise. We get that here in comments, I try to be pretty accurate in my language – I care more about accuracy than about grammar or spelling, but as an example I have said in the past that the laws of supply and demand are immutable.
          That is not true. There are two exceptions – one is theoretical, and has never happened in the real world, the other is prestige goods where people pay more specifically because they are scarce. Regardless, both exceptions are inconsequential. I am not compelled everytime I make a supply and demand claim to note that there are two obscure exceptions.

          Trump is very broad strokes. There were some fine people on both sides at Charlotesville – and alot on BOTH sides that were not.
          Frankly far too many on BOTH sides were itching for a fight. But the big deal lost in the left wing nut naratives – is that the unite the right people had scheduled a rally, got permits, and were entitled to be there – even if that were Nazi’s and Klan members they were entitled to be there.
          They were entitled to police protection which they did not get.
          Everyone else was entitled to watch PEACEFULLY. Which they did not.
          We get this all the time – The left is not Peaceful EVER.

          One of the many problems with J6 is that the protestors on the right had every reasons to beleive that their actions would have little or no consequences. Because if they were Antifa they would not have.

          Just yesterday someone in Antifa in atlanta nearly killed a state police officer and was killed in return, and now Antifa is staging a day of rage because one of their own was killed trying to kill a cop.

          Anyway Trump paints with broad brushes in common language. He is actually quite good at it.
          That is not lying. It is effective politically. Particularly with his audience.

          Biden tells fairy tales – sometimes intended to make a point. If you take them as being truth you will be disappointed.
          One of the problems with Biden’s fairy tales is that too often they are not to make a point, they are too make him look good.

          Regardless, I did not vote for either of them ever.

          But Biden is by far the greater danger and the less competent, and the less trustworthy.
          He might – though I doubt it, make a good freind. He is a lousy president – because of what he DOES not what he says.

    3. Prof Turley is a bright-eyed optimist. I doubt ‘they’ – new House committee – will say much of anything worthwhile about our broken ‘classification system’, and a lot that’s not.

      *The IC has six ways from Sunday to [redacted].them.

  15. so far not a word from the Acting Archivist of the United States about this. maybe someone should ask her and David Ferriero who was the Archivist during Trump’s administration.

  16. “Justice Department officials did go to the resident in Delaware to collect the documents.” (JT)

    This, RussiaGate, the Twitter files are perfectly consistent. It is a mindset of habitual evasion. Those who feel justified in concocting evidence, feel equally justified in evading evidence.

    If your desire is to destroy Americans’ trust in its system of justice, keep playing fast and loose with evidence.

Leave a Reply