Below is my column in the Hill on how the two criminal investigations over classified documents could create an unprecedented constitutional conflict in 2024. We are likely to have two candidates with their own respective special counsels. One or both could be indicted. Either way, the election could protect the winner practically from prosecution either due to a self-pardon or an internal Justice Department rule. A vote for Biden or Trump could therefore literally prove to be a “get out of jail free” card.
Here is the column:
President Biden has declared that the criminal investigation into his possession of classified material ultimately will fizzle out because “there is no ‘there’ there.” To the contrary, there obviously is a great deal “there,” enough that a special counsel was appointed to investigate a classified documents trail from a D.C. office closet to Biden’s Delaware garage.
Although the president wants Americans to look down the road past images of classified documents next to his vintage Corvette, we may be heading into one of the most bizarre, unsettling moments in our constitutional history.
There is now a distinct possibility we will have not just two leading candidates campaigning for the presidency with their own respective special counsels in tow, but two candidates who could be indicted or close to indictment at the time of the election. That would present some novel political and constitutional questions.
A great deal already has been written about comparisons of the two cases and the obvious differences. The Justice Department’s Trump investigation includes not only accusations of mishandling classified material but also of false statements and obstruction; far more documents are involved, too. Yet enough similarities exist that Justice could weigh charges in both cases, even if only misdemeanors.
Moreover, the Biden allegations are serious in their own way. The documents in Donald Trump’s possession at Mar-a-Lago were largely housed in a locked storage room with security added at the FBI’s request; there was ’round-the-clock Secret Service protection and camera surveillance. That is not ideal — but it is better than a dozen documents scattered around a closet, garage and library in different states.
There is no question of gross mishandling in Biden’s case. There is only the question of who was responsible. If the evidence shows that Joe Biden used any of these clearly marked documents to write his book or other projects, his insistence on “inadvertent” possession will take on a more sinister meaning as an effort to deceive the public and the FBI.
Both of these investigations could easily take a year or more. The average time of a special counsel investigation of a president is over 900 days. These two investigations should take less than the average — but they are starting in 2023, with a presidential election in 2024. Trump has already announced, and Biden is expected to do so soon.
The one indictment scenario — One possible scenario that many Democrats are hoping for is that Biden is spared and Trump indicted. This option could be the most explosive with many in the country seeing a double standard.
The no indictment scenario — If the investigations of both Trump and Biden extend to August 2024, the department could follow its policy of not taking actions that might affect an election. Indicting a candidate clearly falls into that category.
The double indictment scenario — The Justice Department could also make fast work of both cases and indict both men. This option however could require a change in Justice Department policy.
This is where it gets wicked.
There has long been a debate over whether a sitting president can be indicted. While some of us believe there is no constitutional barrier to indicting a sitting president, the Justice Department has maintained that such an indictment is improper. Unless the Justice Department changed its view, it could indict Trump but might decline or delay indicting Biden. Moreover, given its policy, Justice could indicate it was holding final action on an indictment of Biden until after the election. A vote for Biden might then be seen as a way to effectively block any indictment.
Under any scenario (absent a decision to forego any charges), both candidates would face indictments or the possibility of indictment after the election. The vote literally could come down to who you want to see pardoned and who you would like to see jailed.
Even if the Justice Department elects not to indict Biden due to a lack of evidence, as opposed to a constitutional bar, it still would mean that Trump’s election could be used to negate any indictment over Mar-a-Lago. Many voters likely would view that as unequal treatment, and a self-pardon prospect could become a rallying point for many voters.
The right of a president to self-pardon is another subject of long-standing debate. Just as I believe a sitting president can be indicted, I also believe a president can pardon himself. Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution states the pardon power allows a president to “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” There is no language limiting who can be pardoned other than that it can only extend to federal crimes. Others disagree. However, it could prove the ultimate factor for the single-issue voter: Who do you want pardoned or prosecuted?
A couple of other potential wrinkles exist.
Trump’s election could result in a pardon, even a prospective pardon for federal crimes. However, he cannot pardon himself for state crimes. For example, Georgia’s Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, is investigating Trump over the 2020 election; the case has some major evidentiary and legal issues to overcome in any trial — but Trump could well be indicted.
If elected, Trump could clear the boards of any and all federal crimes, but he would face a trial in Georgia during his second term.
Biden could have his own pardon surprise. If his son, Hunter, is eventually indicted, Biden could follow the lead of President Clinton, who pardoned his own half-brother. It would be another abuse of the pardon power for personal benefit. Clinton, however, waited until the final days of his second term to act; if Biden was looking for a reason not to run, he might pardon his son and then withdraw from a reelection bid.
This may all sound like a constitutional version of the popular movie, “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” in which one finds oneself in some bizarre parallel universe.
In the movie, protagonist Alpha Waymond explains that “every rejection, every disappointment has led you here to this moment” — and that may be the case with the American electorate. Our duopoly of power has led us to a series of compromises that have brought us to this moment, and we may have to decide which of two candidates we most want to pardoned or prosecuted.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.
The proper venue was for the FBI to get the disputed documents by going to court. That is where to settle disputes.
You keep insisting that there were reasons the FBI could not go to court and had to execute a raid, but to date, you have never told us what those reasons were and provided sufficient evidence that those reasons were valid. Instead, you say the reason and proof are behind closed door #3.
That is proof you are wrong.
Amanda Devine can find no evidence a threat assessment has been done yet. We are 5 months after the raid, and no threat assessment. That proves exigent circumstances were not a reason to raid a Presidents home.
here are scenarios in which classified documents can be removed from a sensitive compartmented information facility, also known as a SCIF. It’s a physical space that meets intelligence community protocols that allows officials with the proper security clearance to study classified documents.
Sensitive compartmented information facilities are used typically for materials categorized as “top secret/sensitive compartmented information.”
There are differing levels of classified documents, with escalating levels of security clearances required to view them. Not all classified documents must be viewed in a SCIF.
Read down through this for a full explanation:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/jan/24/brian-fitzpatrick/gop-congressman-oversimplifies-claim-classified-do/
That’s not an explanation. Its spinning to protect Biden.
Leftist use pedantry as fall back to debate
It’s hard to find an Artical that did not have any ‘sway’.
However itdoes provide a few nice Referances/Sources Links in the Article which are more precise:
List of Sources:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/jan/24/brian-fitzpatrick/gop-congressman-oversimplifies-claim-classified-do/#sources
Technical Specifications for Construction and Management of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (PDF)
https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/Regulations/IC_Technical_Specifications_for_Construction_and_Management_of_Sensitive_Compartmented_Information_Facilities_v151_PDF.pdf
Security Classification of Information
Volume 2. Principles for Classification of Information
https://sgp.fas.org/library/quist2/index.html
CLASSIFICATION LEVELS
https://sgp.fas.org/library/quist2/chap_7.html
Who? doesn’t have “Classified Documents”.
I keep mine in my top Underwear drawer,
right next to my Gun and White Balloons.
“A lawyer for former Vice President Mike Pence discovered about a dozen documents marked as classified at Pence’s Indiana home last week, and he has turned those classified records over to the FBI, multiple sources familiar with the matter told CNN.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/pence-classified-documents-fbi/index.html
Will he, too, invite the FBI to search further? Will those claiming that Biden committed a crime conclude the same for Pence.
This only underscores the need for the government to deal with its inability to properly track classified docs. It also has a tendency to classify things that shouldn’t be classified, though there’s no way to know if that was the case here (or, for that matter, with anything in Biden’s or Trump’s possession).
Today, we see that the remarks by Biden about the Trump documents were meant to appeal to emotions and were not statesmanlike. The words used did not promote the well-being of America. Had the left acted appropriately, which they seldom do, America would be better off.
The problem is the left and the Biden administration, in particular, don’t create firm policy decisions. The left functions to promote leftism, and the best way to do that is to break down the fabric of American society.
I’m generally not a betting person, but I’d bet that Dick Cheney has classified docs too.
Obama was in a fight with NARA for years. None of this is unusual – except that the FBI Trump raid political maneuver has thrown a spotlight on the problem.
Now we are fighting over which former politicians best dealt with doing something they are not likely obligated to do – accede to NARA’s demand for papers from their tenure.
Trump appears to by far have done the best job of handling documents as ex-president – all in his former SCIF and ex-presidents officies.
Obama had documents in an “abandoned warehouse” – but I beleive in 2018 struck a deal with NARA to take over managing them.
Regardless, with near certainty he also has classified documents throughout his homes.
Pence said stupid things and is now caught with his pants down. But he has the Best actual “inadvertant” claim. As it appears his documents were transported to him by GSA sealed and not unsealed until his lawyers started looking for classified documents.
Biden is an absolute disaster with Docs from decades strewn all over the place, and made himself by far the biggest hypocrit with his attacks on Trump.
Both Biden and Pence have only the weakest claim of actual ownership – which is why they are relying on “inadvertance” and “cooperation”
Trump has been consistant from Day one – these docs are HIS, And they are declassified.
And legally he is in the strongest position.
Time will tell. As is often the case, you pretend that your opinions are facts.
It is unlikely that Time will tell – as the odds of the SC proceding were always low.
It is unlikly this conflict will produce new cases in court, and therefore the courts will not have to re-iterate the JW v NARA position.
You will be able to continue to claim the caselaw is unclear – because you are willfully blind and can not read the plain language of the holdings.
While it has been commonplace for leftwing nuts to make stupid legal arguments – and even win in front of bat$hit judges that should be removed, Those decisions have rarely held up.
The entire Trump administration was constant claims that the walls were closing in, when the reality is that the left was tenaciously fighting to keep their malignance and lawlessness from being exposed.
If my views are opinions – rather than the fact of the law – then my track record on opinions has been excellent.
Either I am actually nearly always correct on the law and the facts, or I can read the minds of the supreme court, and rational lower courts
I would suggest that the odds are far better than I grasp the law and the facts, than that I am really good with ouija boards.
The courts do not always do what they should, they do not always get it right, they do not actually follow the constitution.
But they nearly always ultimately do as I expect them too – as opposed to as I want them too. Though sometimes it takes a few tries and appeals.
I would note that is the ultimate test of the Dunning Kruger effect – or more accurately – are you a moron that places ideology above fact.
And that is Do you predict the decisions of others correctly – or do you always predict your desired outcome ?
If you live entirely in your own bubble and your understanding of other perspectives is a carciture of those actual views – that is what leads to Dunning Kruger. If conversely you can accurately express the views of those you disagree with that demonstrates your ability to assess things objectively.
John B. Say, you make a lot of false claims here.
“Now we are fighting over which former politicians best dealt with doing something they are not likely obligated to do – accede to NARA’s demand for papers from their tenure.”
NARA by law is required to retain custody of those papers deemed presidential records. That’s just a fact that is not debatable. The PRA explicitly outlines what are presidential records and what are personal records. Politicians ARE required to follow the law. Biden did exactly what was supposed to be done. Fully cooperate and turn over records that are clearly not his to keep. The DOJ and the FBI were notified accordingly and handed over the material. VP Mike Pence did the same thing when his own lawyers found classified documents in his office they promptly contacted the DOJ and FBI and turned them over. Since many here are accusing Biden of committing a crime for doing what Pence did there should be similar accusations for Pence to be investigated and appoint a special counsel. Trump is the exception no matter how hard you try to excuse Trump’s criminal behavior. What Biden and Pence did is in stark contrast with what Trump did. Trump is accused of willful retention of documents that NARA and the DOJ knew he was not supposed to have. He purposely avoided cooperating and refused to turn them over until he was forced by subpoena. Biden and Pence didn’t have to go thru that because they turned them over as they are supposed to. When it was discovered that Trump’s lawyers lied to the FBI and a whistleblower notified the FBI that Trump had highly classified documents they HAD to get a search warrant. Trump lied and tried to deceive the DOJ. It was he who brought on these problems. The excuses you keep making for Trump keep getting more and more ridiculous as the comparisons are nowhere near the same.
“Pence said stupid things and is now caught with his pants down. But he has the Best actual “inadvertant” claim. As it appears his documents were transported to him by GSA sealed and not unsealed until his lawyers started looking for classified documents.”
Pence, according to Turley’s own logic, lied. Pence’s inadvertent claim is no different than Biden’s. You don’t know how the documents in Biden’s office or garage were found. You don’t know if Biden’s documents were taken there by staffers just as Pence ended up with his batch of classified documents. We don’t know for sure if those boxes were really sealed or not. You’re trying to minimize the similarities to avoid the fact that Pence is just as guilty as Biden. Pence was also surprised to find out he had classified documents in his possession. Both of them can easily claim staffers were responsible for bringing the documents. Trump cannot make that claim since he ordered staffers to pack the documents he had. He was aware that he was taking them Biden and Pence were not.
“Biden is an absolute disaster with Docs from decades strewn all over the place, and made himself by far the biggest hypocrit with his attacks on Trump.”
False. Biden’s documents were found in one location in the garage and one location at the office of the former think tank. Trump had more than 300 hundred documents intermingled with personal items in a storage room, pool house, safe, and and unlocked drawer in his office. The SCIF at MAL was no longer active since Trump was barred from receiving National security briefings. His clearance was revoked by Biden. Trump willfully retained documents. Biden and Pence turned the over as soon as they found them. Trump refused to turn them over for 18 months until he had to be subpoenaed for them and subsequently raided by the FBI because he lied about turning over everything. Trump is in much bigger trouble.
What is clear is that there is a problem regarding classified documents being ‘forgotten’ or ‘misplaced’. NARA and the FBI were unaware of Biden and Pence’s classified documents except Trump. They knew he had them and he refused to turned them over to the proper authorities in violation of the PRA and the espionage act.
NARA by law is required to retain custody of those papers deemed presidential records.
Who does the deeming? Who decides disputes?
Bonus question. Are there records leaving the White House that are Personal the the President?
“Who does the deeming?”
NARA does. The PRA authorizes NARA to make that determination by using the PRA’s definition of what constitutes presidential record and personal. The PRA’s definitions are quite explicit.
“Who decides disputes?”
A court decides when there is a dispute. It’s very limited, but it only settles disputes on issues that are not clearly personal or presidential record. Those that are clearly presidential record or personal are generally not reviewable, but the president still has to prove that personal records meet the definition set by the PRA. Anything that is not associated with the job of being president or part of his constitutional duty is generally seen as personal. However the president does not have the unilateral power to claim anything he wants as personal or presidential record.
“Are there records leaving the White House that are Personal the the President?”
Of course there are. Every president has those. They still need to be identified as personal. Letters to family are personal. Letters to a governor are presidential record because they involve discussion of government policy or functions. Common sense usually makes it quite clear what is and isn’t personal.
Of course there are. Every president has those. They still need to be identified as personal.
Aanndd theres the rub.. The President takes what is his.
Now the NA somehow, through mind reading, says they want something.
What is the the next step?
Hint, the PRA is a civil, not criminal statute. A warrant executed by armed agents is NOT the next step….because, well its a cicil matter, And the Presidents determination carries more weight than the Archivist.
According to you, prior to the search, why did Trump willingly turn over to NARA documents that — according to you — belong to him?
Because Trump and NARA negotiated what was personal and what was PRA, Like every administration since the law was enacted. This is common practice. NARA appeals to the Presidents sense goodwill allowing for the creation of a historical record for all. At the same time NARA knows they have to give and take in order to get anything at all. Lots of times NARA agrees to copies, leaving originals with the President.
If the NARA plays a heavy hand the President says screw you, PRA, I’ll Put the PRA in front of SCOTUS to declare the law unconstitutional based on separation of powers. Its clear, Congress has no constitutional power to tell the Executive Branch how to conduct itself and its records.
But then Biden and Garland played politics and raided the Presidents home. Never been done before, Won’t happen again.
PRA is a civil not criminal statute. IF there was a stalemate over something, a civil case is brought asking the court to order specific things are turned over. Biden/Garland ignored that step and just took what they wanted and implied crimes are being committee. But despite the claims of irrefutable evidence, and black letter law, DoJ has yet to file criminal charges.
“Trump and NARA negotiated what was personal and what was PRA”
So you’re arguing that Trump originally broke the law and took PRA materials. OK.
“Congress has no constitutional power to tell the Executive Branch how to conduct itself and its records.”
Former Presidents aren’t part of the Executive Branch.
“Biden/Garland …”
Biden was not informed ahead of time. It was Gardland’s decision.
“DoJ has yet to file criminal charges.”
Right, Trump slowed down the investigation with the Special Master suit and 11th Circuit appeal. We don’t know whether charges will be filed. Learn patience.
So you’re arguing that Trump originally broke the law and took PRA materials. OK.
I argue no such thing.
I don’t have the patience with you to step this through the Socratic methold
Before the PRA Presidential papers belonged to the President. Per the Constitution. There was no federal power to relieve the Presidents of those he deemed were his property.
The PRA did not change the Constitution.
All papers belong to the President, and are released at the Pleasure of the President.
All governmental documents belong to the government.
All Presidential documents belong to the President.
All governmental documents belong to the government.
Since George Washington, Presidential papers have always belonged to the President. That’s whats in all those Presidential Libraries
“Aanndd theres the rub.. The President takes what is his.”
No. The president still has to run it thru NARA before he takes anything as personal. He still has to prove whatever he claims meets what the PRA defines as personal.
“Now the NA somehow, through mind reading, says they want something.”
No. NARA has to by law keep anything that is deemed presidential record and it determines that thru a person or persons who have experience in what the law says is and determine what is personal or presidential record. There are a lot of things that are obvious as personal some things are obviously not. Trump didn’t bother to make that distinction and took whatever he wanted. That’s not how it works.
“Hint, the PRA is a civil, not criminal statute. A warrant executed by armed agents is NOT the next step…”
The PRA is a law. That law states what trump can and cannot do when it comes to records. A warrant was executed after trump LIED about turning over all documents that NARA had been trying to get from him for nearly two years. The FBI was not armed when they conducted the raid.
The PRA is a law. That law states what trump can and cannot do when it comes to records.
What is the criminal penalty for violating this law?
You act like Trump is First President to challenge personal v Presidential Record. In fact it has happened for ever single President.
The FBI was not armed when they conducted the raid.
Right. FBI agents dont carry guns. Come on MAN….they are even arming IRS agents, and the Dept of Education has an annual budget for weapons. But not the FBI. They left their guns at home when they went to MaL
Why do you keep suggesting that laws must be criminal?
Why do you keep ignoring the alleged crimes?
Why do you avoid stating what the arguments and facts are? Why do you hide behind door #3?
Nothing stopped Trump from raising the issues in the correct venue, before Judge Reinhardt.
That’s not how search warrants work. There is nothing to challenge. The warrant is approved by the affidavit signed by those seeking warrant, as to the facts submitted. There is no way to challenge those facts. The Constitutional check on the power of the govt to invade your privacy, is when that evidence is presented at a trial charging an actual crime. The Authors of the 4th and 5th amendment never considered the govt would use the process as the punishment for political differences.
On the contrary, under FL law, the person from whom property was seized under a warrant can challenge the warrant without waiting to be charged.
Why do you keep suggesting that laws must be criminal?
Why do you keep ignoring the alleged crimes?
Because someone keeps claiming Trump is committing a crime. You have claimed Trump stole documents. The warrant for evidence means a criminal, not civil case. Yet more evidence the warrant is unconstitutional.
That is the reason for my question, that is being ignored. What is the criminal penalty?
As far as the alleged crimes. I have no idea what they are, because Garland can’t let this get in front of ANY Judge because he has no elements of a crime to prosecute. Remember the 11th circuit refuse to allow Trump to raise the abuse of his constitutional rights, in court.
If you have no idea what they are, all you need do is read the unsealed warrant.
Nothing stopped Trump from raising the issues in the correct venue, before Judge Reinhardt.
Those that are clearly presidential record or personal are generally not reviewable,
A law that is non reviewable in its application?
The only I can think of are planary powers of the President. Classification, Pardons, Foreign affairs.
Please educate me to those laws written by congress that are not reviewable.
but it only settles disputes on issues that are not clearly personal or presidential record.
Exactly who decides the “Clearly Personal”? The President packs up all his personal papers and has them moved. The Archivist does not get to root around in the Presidents stuff and take what they want. The President turns over what he determines is covered under PRA.
NARA has no power to demand things. They can only petition the court.
Svelaz constantly misunderstands JW v. NARA.
First the decision is based purely on LAW – not the facts.
Judge Jackson did not care what was on the Branch tapes. The only reference to the tapes in her holding is that they were not in NARA’s posession, and therefore NARA had no duty, and no authority and no power regarding them.
Svelaz tries to claim that Branches tapes were more like a Woodward interview – they were not, Branch was a historian not a journalist,
and the tapes were recordings of Clinton’s presidency as it happened – including classified exchanges.
Judicial Watch tried to make a big deal of that – JW was correctly asserting that by the defintion in the law these tapes were CLEARLY Presidential not personal.
But Jackson and prior courts said that did not matter. To be Constitutional, the choice must rest with the president, and must be unreviewable,
so it did not matter what was on the tapes.
Nor was jackson’s decision alone, but consistent with 2 decades of decisions
“NARA by law is required to retain custody of those papers deemed presidential records. That’s just a fact that is not debatable.”
Your problem is that – as you have framed the PRA it would be unconstitutional.
That is Why all the court decisions which you keep trying to pretend did not say what the plainly say.
“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.”
Jackson did NOT say – NARA may not designate THESE materials – the Clinton tapes – as presidential records.
She said NARA has NO authority to designate presidential recoreds.
As in the JW cane, Trump, Biden, Pence (obama, Bush, Clinton) all POSESSED the records.
Next
NARA lacks any RIGHT, DUTY or MEANS to seize them – that was true with Pence, Biden and Trump.
Put simply YOU LOSE.
It is ARGUABLE that NARA might have a stronger case against Pence and Biden.
YOU have argued that other courts MIGHT overrule JW v. NARA – and though unlikely because that would result in the PRA being unconstitutional, Who knows maybe left wing nut woke lawyers could convince SCOTUS to ignore much of Article II of the constitution.
And actually decide what YOU are claiming.
That would still be a REVERSAL of all current caselaw on NARA and the PRA.
Which would STILL result in Trump being NOT GUILTY of anything.
Because SCOTUS – and probable any sane lower court is NEVER going to say that Armstrong, Armstrong II, and JW v NARA and others are so OBVIOUSLY egregiously wrong that Trump could not possibly rely on them.
You can not make a crime out of following the law – Even if the courts change the law.
The wing nut claims of obstruction – would not be true – even if Trump violated the law – because vigoruously asserting your innocence is NOT EVER obstruction. But it is especially not obstruction when no other crime was commited.
There is not crime of obstruction of injustice.
The DOJ is not NARA.
The DOJ has the right to seize government property.
First the DOJ has to prove it is government property. To do so, they have to go to court.
A court issued the warrant.
A warrant is used by the govt to seize personnel property, as evidence of a crime. We still don’t have a crime
A warrant was used to seize government property, with a bit of personal property mixed in that has already been returned. Again: The DOJ has the right to seize government property.
As for whether he’ll be charged with the crimes alleged in the warrant, time will tell.
A warrant was used to seize government property, with a bit of personal property mixed in
The purpose of the warrant was to search for evidence. Ownership of the evidence never has any bearing.
You know you are wrong. When disputed ownership exists, settlement is not determined by who has the gun. The parties go to court.
In other systems where despots are in power, guns replace courts. That is the type of law you promote while, at the same time, you hide behind lies.
Face it. You are telling everyone to follow your directives, or you will use force. You do not believe in the rule of law.
The DOJ already returned the personal property. Trump is free to go to court and state that the government still has some of his personal property, but the onus is on him to show that some personal property wasn’t returned. Certainly the Special Master didn’t determine most of what was taken to be personal property, and Trump actually slowed down the return of the small subset that was personal property by requiring that the Special Master look at it first.
For all of the documents with classified markings, the fact that they have classified markings makes them government property (whether still classified or not).
“The DOJ already returned the personal property. Trump is free to go to court and state that the government still has some of his personal property, but the onus is on him to show that some personal property wasn’t returned.”
Thank you for proving yourself wrong and being a supporter of despotism.
You advocated taking the documents in question by force instead of getting them through the courts. Once in possession of them, you change the rules and tell the rightful owner to go to court.
We know almost for sure who the rightful owner was. It was Trump because if the government had the legal authority and ownership, the court would order the documents returned. The government didn’t need guns. It required respect for the law.
“The DOJ is not NARA.”
Correct.
“The DOJ has the right to seize government property.”
Nope, they have even LESS authority to do so.
You are trying to game this.
The problem fundimental problems is that PRA attempts alter the constitutional powers of the current president.
The courts have solved that problem by ignoring the attempt to limit the current presidents constitutional powers.
The alternative would be to declare the PRA unconstitutional.
NARA is atleast given custory of the docs independent of ownership.
There is BTW caselaw – lots of it regarding DOJ and the records in posession of an ex-president (or NARA).
And the answer there is that DOJ must go to court to get ACCESS – they can not get ownership, but akmost any reason they make up with sufficie for the courts to give ACCESS to DOJ.
You can not game this by picking another agency.
You are trying to pretend that it si beyond any doubt that government owns the documents – because that is what the PRA says. That is also the part of the PRA that is unconstitutional.
The courts are IGNORING the parts of th e PRA that give govenrment ownership and have decided that WH documents that a president Chooses to call personal are HIS property.
Essentially the state prior to the PRA.
DOJ can not seize the documents – because constitutionally the disposition of the documents belongs to the president, and if the president decided they are his personally – they are,
and the courts can not even consider a challenge.
“PRA attempts alter the constitutional powers of the current president.”
The PRA was signed into law by a President, the head of the Executive Branch. If the current President rejects being bound in that way, the correct response of that current President is to challenge in court whether the current Executive can be bound by a law signed by a previous Executive.
“DOJ must go to court to get ACCESS”
Judge Reinhardt disagrees with you in light of the alleged crimes, and I trust his legal judgment over yours, just like I trust the 11th Circuit’s legal judgment over yours.
“The PRA was signed into law by a President, the head of the Executive Branch.”
Keep up, The courts already decided the issue – Your on the wrong side of your own argument. Trump did not need to go to court, because the correct constitutional application of the PRA was aleready DECIDED.
In MULTIPLE cases.
“Judge Reinhardt disagrees with you”
Magistrate Reinhardt neither agreed with me nor disagreed.
He was oblivious to an applicable constitutional problem with DOJ/FBI’s warrant application in a exparte proceding where DOJ/FBI were legally obligated to raise it.
That is how ex-parte procedings work.
“in light of the alleged crimes, and I trust his legal judgment over yours, just like I trust the 11th Circuit’s legal judgment over yours.”
No, you just like Reinhardts outcome.
You do not like where Cannon was headed,
and you do not like the whole series of legal desions that precluded the NARA and DOJ from doing any of this in the first place – that Reinhardt and the 11th applete failed to consider.
Reinhardt is excusable – he is a magistrate judge dealing with an ex-parte warrant application. His judgement is only final to the extent that it permited FBI to raid Trump. It has no meaning at all as to who the documents beleonged to.
The 11th apelate made the same – and several more legal errors – but with much more time to contemplate and not in the context of an exparte hearing.
The most obvious error is their bold pronouncement that the president is not different.
Obviosuly the president is different the entire classification scheme in the US rests on the whims of the president according to the constitution.
I would further note that whether you like it or not the 11th appelate – while they erred, also decided so narrowly they only decided that Cannon does not have jurisdiction.
Put simply they decided NOT that the DOJ seizeure was valid,
but that it could not be challenged at this juncture.
In the unlikely instance that DOJ procedes – the issues that the 11th appelate evaded will return to haunt them.
It should be obvious that they erred from the FACT that NARA would have lost had they gone to court.
Had DOJ tried to address the subpeona in court they would have gotten access not posession.
When the government skips multiple viable options to go to court to get what they want and uses the ONLY ex-parte means available to them – you KNOW they are gaming the law and the courts. And the 11th apealate should not have been stupid enough to allow that.
And you should not be so stupid as to not notice.
I would also note that had the 11th been aware of the Biden docs it is unlikely they would have reached the same decision.
Another way you can tell political corruption is when decisions are driven by Trump derangement syndrome.
Don’t pretend to know my beliefs better than I do.
“Don’t pretend to know my beliefs better than I do.”
I didn’t. Your arguments however are avialble for all to se and judge.
When you say things like “No, you just like Reinhardts outcome,” which is false, you are pretending to know my beliefs better than me.
Are you saying you think Reinhardt was wrong ?
If you are not, then I have either read you mind – or more correctly read your WORDS correctly.
It is pretty stupid to accuse me of claiming to know your beleifs better than you when YOUR example is a remark of mine that accurately reflects your stated postions
“YOUR example is a remark of mine that accurately reflects your stated postions”
I dare you to quote what I actually said that you equate with “you just like Reinhardts outcome.” There is nothing you can quote from me that means the same thing.
“I dare you to quote what I actually said”
You chose to intermingle your comments with many people who call themselves anonymous. That leaves the burden of proof in your hands to provide the statements you made.
I agree with John. Though his words are not quoting you exactly, the words used define your position.
How about being honest ?
How about if you demonstrate some statement of yours which suggests that you think that Reinhardt is wrong or that you do not like his decision ?
Taking you at your word – I appologize for my error,
in the future my remarks will reflect that you dislike Reinhardts decision.
Each of us has a burden of proof for our own claims. You claimed “you just like Reinhardts outcome,” and I’m saying: prove it by quoting what I actually said that you’re equating with “you just like Reinhardts outcome.” Don’t try to shift the burden onto me to prove you wrong. That’s a misplaced burden fallacy.
“Each of us has a burden of proof for our own claims.”
False.
We have been through this before.
All claims are not equal, all claimants are not equal.
OBVIOUSLY burdens are different.
“You claimed “you just like Reinhardts outcome,” and I’m saying: prove it”
I did.
“by quoting what I actually said ”
What there is only one way way to prove something ?
There are many ways to prove something
Trivial proof
Vaccuous proof
direct proof
indirect proof
proof by contradiction.
Lest assume that you “do NOT like Reinhardts outcome” – does that result in a contradiction with other asserts of yours ?
Of course it does.
That is just ONE of many ways to prove something aside from a direct quote.
If it is true that
A implies B
and
B implies C
and YOU claim A
Then YOU have also claimed C
That is a different way.
“Don’t try to shift the burden onto me to prove you wrong.”
Your posting as anonymous – the burdern is ALWAYS on you
“That’s a misplaced burden fallacy.”
Nope. Please read the actual elements of the actual fallacy and the many different possible forms of proof above – and elsewhere.
This is the actual fallacy – which BTW PRESUMES that A & B have equal track records for Trust.
Person A: I claim X is true.
Person B: Prove it.
Person A: Can you prove it’s not true?
This
Person A: I claim X is true.
Person B: Prove it.
Person A: X being false is not consistent with arguments made by B.
Is NOT a misplaced burden of proof falacy.
To reiterate – so long as you continue to post as anonymous the burder of proof is ALWAYS on you.
Formal debate and the rules of logic which you are at best shallowly familiar with presume:
Honest and sincere actors with an established track record for honest debate.
If in a formal debate
I asserted
The earth is not flat
And my adversary responded
“Prove it”
He would be removed from the debate.
There are about 3000 steps to the proof that 1 + 1 = 2
Before any of the rules of logic come into play,
the FIRST requirement is that those involved in the debate are honest and credible.
You are posting as Anonymous – you are presumed to have no credibility.
It is the cost of posting anonymouslu
I have been through this repeatedly before.
You have the means at your disposal to reduce your burden of proof – post under a name and establish a reputation for integrity, trustworthyness, truth.
Until you do – I have zero interest in your claims of misplaced budern of proof.
As demonstrated in a prior post – you do not even correctly understand the fallacy.
“in the future my remarks will reflect that you dislike Reinhardts decision.”
I haven’t made any statements about which of Reinhardt’s decisions I like (if any) and which I dislike (if any). The issue of liking/disliking is not interchangeable with what I actually said, which was “I trust his legal judgment over yours, just like I trust the 11th Circuit’s legal judgment over yours.” I ALSO also trust Clarence Thomas’s legal judgment more than I trust yours — are you now going to assume without evidence that I “just like [Thomas’s] outcome”?? Or can you get it through your thick head that trusting someone’s legal judgment is not interchangeable with liking particular decisions, because their judgement goes far beyond any specific decision, and the fact that I’d trust almost any judge’s legal judgement over yours is a reflection of my not trusting your legal judgments at all. A simple fact of math: anything even a bit positive is greater than zero.
Being evasve is not an argument.
Not interested in the game playing.
You may not rely on reinhardt, while simulateaously disowning his decision.
It is called a contradiction.
You can not use Reinhardt as a premis and then claim to have no position or Reinhardt.
This is not merely error, but it is also dishonesty.
“The issue of liking/disliking is not interchangeable with what I actually said, which was “I trust his legal judgment over yours, just like I trust the 11th Circuit’s legal judgment over yours.” ”
Actually it is.
Further you are engaged in myriads of fallacies of your own.
“I trust his legal judgment over yours”
Is an appeal to authority.
You are free to “trust his legal judgement over yours”
But you are not Free to do so in formal logic.
The moment you argue from Trust (or distrust) – you have abandoned formal logic, and the presumption that all parties are equally trustworthy.
You are free to “trust his legal judgement over yours”.
Just as I and myriads of others are free to not trust you so long as you post anonymously
and to always place the burden of proof on you because you are posting anonymously.
What you are not free to do is make the fallacious argument – “I trust X” and then follow that with “your shifting the burden of proof”.
As you have made two errors – you have incorrectly claimed the burden of proof fallacy.
And you have abandoned the realm of formal debate and logic and then tried to use its rules.
So long as you continue to post anonymously – the budern of proof is ALWAYS on you.
The FACT that you made an argument that rests on Trust – either means you understand this,
or you are an idiot.
Reinhardts legal judgement is more trustworthy than mine, just as the posts of anyone with a name are more trustworthy than any anonymous poster. and those with a reputation for accuracy are more trustworthy than those without.
All you have done with your Reinhardt argument is PROVE my own argument that anonymous posts can not be trusted.
Ignoring the fact that Reinhardt signed what is inarguably close to if not actually a genral warrant, and fails miserably at the requirement that warants must be specific and taylored to the confines of the underlying evidence in the affadavit.
The more fundimental problem is not Reinhardts legal judgement – it is that of the DOJ/FBI – much as it was in the FISA warrant.
Warrants are ExParte. In the rare instances ExParte processes are allowed – and they are never allowed when a process with both parties is feasable, it is the DUTY of the party petitioning the court to provide ALL exculpatory information.
We do not have the entirety of the warrant application – but in what we are provided DOJ/FBI has not provided the court with the FACT that they have had multiple opportunities and continue to have the opportunity to go to court to get a court order – rathr than a warrant.
Nor have they addressed that they likely did not do so because they would lose.
It is not Reinhardts legal judgement that is the major problem – it is the fact that he was deceived – much as the FISA court was.
That however does nto let the 11th appelate court off the hook – as they made fundimental basic errors – like ignoring the constitution itself.
The 11th appelate litterally stated that the president is bound by a law that if it applied to the president is on its face constitutional.
Please explain to me ANY way that ANY president can violate the espionage act – While President – without the espionage act violating the constitution ?
In fact explain to me how you are going to construct ANY government that is functional, that has an act like the espionage act that applies to the chief executive ?
The issue here is exactly the same as that of the PRA – the fundimental problem is the “who decides” problem. The executive branch exists because all duties and responsibilities of government can not be carrined out by congress. You can not subject a decision that is outside the ability of congress to make to review – particularly criminal sanctions.
This is not always a bright lines issue. But specific to the espionage act it clearly is.
Are you going to argue that a president may not find that it is necescary on occasion to provide classified information to a foreign power – even a hostile foreign power ?
There is no way Congress can decide when that is appropriate and when it is not.
And the courts can not review it.
So it is OBVIOUS – contra the 11th appelate that the president is UNIQUE with rgard to the espionage act.
And yet the 11th appelate blythly dismissed that argumnt without the slightest thought.
That is Error. Obvious error, and a reason NOT to trust their judgement.
There is an aphorism that hard cases make bad law.
A different way of putting this is that left wing nut judges – and even some on the right get so deranged by the fact that a case involves Trump, that their judgement is clouded – as is yours.
You say you Trust Thomas’s legal judgement – How do we know that ?
You offer that in support of your claims regarding Reinhardt?
But the Reinhardt instance is Real, while your claim to truat Thomas is purely hypothetical.
And not likely true either.
Find a consequential oppinion or concurance of Thomas’s that you actual agree with.
Why don’t we start with Thomas’s concurrance on Dobb’s – Do you trust Thomas on that ?
Do you agree that not only was Roe improperly decided – dut so was Grisold V Connecticutt ?
You claim that Trust is not the same as liking the outcome – that is actually correct.
But for YOU it is evident that they are congruent.
I do not beleive that you actually trust Thomas.
I do not think you have a clue what Trust actually means.
I do not think you make choices based on Trust – but based on YOUR prefered outcome.
I do not think that you trust Thomas – except in the very rare – if ever instances he arrives a your desired outcome.
You claim to trust the 11th Appelate – yet you do not trust Cannon – Their legal backgounds are nearly identical – except that Reinhardt is an Article II judge – i.e. A magistrate and not an actual Judge, while Cannon is an Actual Article III judge. They both graduated cum laude from Top Law Schools they both had federal judicial clearkships. They both served as Assistant US Attorney’s, they both worked for corporate law firms.
Cannon has more Criminal law and appelate experience than Reinhardt.
There are some questions regarding Reinhardt’s ethics when he left the DOJ while working on the Epstein case to go to work as a defense lawyer on Epstein’s case. It is generally not ethical to work on both sides of the same case.
Regardless, you make claims out of the blue – that you Trust Reinhardt, that you trust the 11th Appelate (and by implication that you do not Trust cannon), that you Trust Thomas.
You provide ZERO basis for these claims. And the only obvious basis is that you like specific outcomes – and frankly your claim that you Trust Thomas is not even credible.
You do not understand what Trust is.
If you did you would understand that posting as anonymous deprives you of trust.
“Or can you get it through your thick head that trusting someone’s legal judgment is not interchangeable with liking particular decisions”
I am not claiming that trust and liking a decisions are GENERALLY interchangeable.
My argument is about YOU.
“because their judgement goes far beyond any specific decision, and the fact that I’d trust almost any judge’s legal judgement over yours is a reflection of my not trusting your legal judgments at all. A simple fact of math: anything even a bit positive is greater than zero.”
Thomas has siad tha Roe was wrongly decided, that there is no right to be found in the constitution and that the 9th amendment does not reach that far.
I have said that there is no right to an abortion, but a right to control of your own body, both found in proprty rights – your body is YOUR property and in the 9th amendment. My position BTW is near identical to that of Left Wing Prof. Lawrence Tribe as expressed in his textbook on constitutional law. It is also the position of anarcho capitalist legal scholar Walter Block.
I doubt you agree with either of us. But are you claiming that Thomas’s legal judgement is better than mine ?
There is no evidence that you have ANY basis for your alleged Trust of different people.
You claim to Trust federal Judges – Cannon is an actual federal Judge – Rienhardt is just a magistrate.
Even Wikipedia claims that the 11th Appelate decided the Trump[ case SOLELY based on Jurisdiction.
Another of these bad decisions based on Court created doctrines NOT actual law or constitution.
Trump filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of his 4th and 5th amendment rights OF COURSE the federal court in his district has Jurisidction.
You do not seem to grasp that the 11th appealate ruled that DOJ/FBI can seize a person’s proprty and violate their 4th amendment rights without any due process. That is what a lack of jurisdiction means.
BTW there is plenty of case law to the contrary.
You should always be deeply suspicious of courts that refuse to hear a case or refuse to allow a case to be heard – when there is no glarringly obvious reason that should be the case – such as an unrelated party bringing the case, or trying to bring a case 20 years after the fact.
You think Reinhardt was right – when his decision has had ZERO judicial Review. You think Cannon was wrong – when the only final decision she made was to proceed with the case. You think the 11th appelate was right – when their decision decides nothing.
Truthfully – I doubt you understand any of that.
You claim to Trust judges – but it is already evident that it is ONLY CERTAIN judges.
My conclusion that your judgement is driven by you like of the outcome is supported by the FACTS evident in YOUR posts.
Addressing your MISUSE of logic – that is not an absolute conclusion of pure logic.
It is a probability based on the weight of the evidence.
Your claim that you trust federal judges is clearly not true – you do not Trust cannon.
Your claim that you trust Thomas is not supported by evidence.
If you wish to falsify my claim that your views are driven by your preferance regarding outcome. provide instances where you do NOT like the outcome but you agree with the judges decision.
I can do that trivially – liberarianism is NOT about acheiving the best outcomes. Libertarains do not seek to minimize drug deaths, or crime, or bad speach. Libertarianism is not about outcome – it is about RIGHTS.
Nazi’s have the right to march through Skokie – even if I do not like that.
Trump has a right to challenge the seizure of his property.
Humans have the right to control their own body.
People have the right to take drugs – even if that is bad for them.
In many many many things – our freedom is more important than outcome.
I doubt you can make an argument for any of your positions – or those who you claim to trust that is NOT based on outcome.
“If it is true that
“A implies B
“and
“B implies C
“and YOU claim A
“Then YOU have also claimed C”
First, to be clear: your conclusion “YOU have also claimed C” is false. But that’s a minor error. What would be true is “YOU have also implied C”
Second and much more importantly: that’s a conditional (if) claim, you have not even identified A, B, and C, much less have you shown all of the required parts: that (1) I claimed A, (2) A implies B, (3) B implies C.
Still waiting for you to quote what I actually claimed.
IF you cannot quote A, THEN your conditional falls apart. IF you cannot identify B and C, THEN your conditional falls apart. IF you cannot show that A does imply B and also that B does imply C, THEN your conditional falls apart.
Modus Ponens:
P implies Q.
P is true. Therefore Q must also be true.
Not – “Q is implied”.
Please actually learn the rules of formal logic before mangling them.
“Second and much more importantly: that’s a conditional (if) claim, you have not even identified A, B, and C,”
I do not need to.
I pointed out that your argument is lgically invalid.
It does not matter what A, B, and C are so long as A is A, B is B and C is C and the assertions are as specified.
If you are going to make claims based on the rules of formal logic – please be familiar with them.
Modus Ponens is the FIRST Rule of inference in Formal Logic,
And you have bothced that.
Your posts are readily available.
Do I need to provide a proof that the earth orbits the sun to assert that the earth orbits the sun ?
Are you free to demand proof of the obvious ?
Everyone here can read what you wrote.
I am not obligated to quote you just because you want that.
Nor am I interested in getting into semantic games with you about your own words.
People can read them and judge for themselves.
There is no need to get into other arguments with you where you claim to mean differently from what you said.
You have been doing that with atleast a half dozen posts.
“IF you cannot quote A, THEN your conditional falls apart. IF you cannot identify B and C, THEN your conditional falls apart. IF you cannot show that A does imply B and also that B does imply C, THEN your conditional falls apart.”
I do not need to do anyt of these things –
The argument made is YOURS not mine.
I just noted that it is in the form of two nested modus Pollens and then you reject the inevitable results – which is a logical error.
This argument is over – you lost.
I did not win – You lost, you did that on your own.
You did it with your OWN words.
All I did was cast a light on ONE of YOUR logic errors.
It is self evident that you would rather play word games than honestly debate anything.
I have gone down a rabit hole with you demonstrating that you are not even honest with yourself.
You express your views but pretend that you need not own or defend them.
You make arguments about Trust – failing to graps that you have just proven that the burden of proof is most often on you as an anonymous poster.
You claim to trust federal judges because they are federal judges – though only some and with no basis for which ones.
You are obviously correct that the odds are a federal judge is more likely correct than John B Say.
JUst as John B Say is more likely correct than an anonymous poster.
Regardless, your arguments all devolve quickly to semantics, and then rush as fast as you can away from the actual issues.
And you do not even argue semantics well.
“the burdern is ALWAYS on you”
Fact exist in the world, but that’s an opinion, not a fact.
““the burdern is ALWAYS on you”
Fact exist in the world, but that’s an opinion, not a fact.”
NO it is a standard that you owned when you said that you trust the oppinions of Federal judges.
You are anonymous. You are not a federal judge,
You are not even a poster with a name.
You have the highest burden of proof – by your own criteria.
“‘The issue of liking/disliking is not interchangeable with what I actually said, which was “I trust his legal judgment over yours, just like I trust the 11th Circuit’s legal judgment over yours.” ‘
“Actually it is.”
No, it isn’t, and I already gave you a counterexample: I trust Clarence Thomas’s legal opinion over yours, even though I do not like many of Thomas’s legal opinions.
It is entirely a statement that I have ZERO trust in your legal opinions, and anyone whose legal opinions I trust even a bit is someone whose legal opinions I trust more than yours, simply by virtue of x > 0 for any positive value of x.
“”I trust his legal judgment over yours’ Is an appeal to authority.”
It isn’t. I did not claim or imply that his legal judgment is true. I voiced an opinion about my own level of trust in the two of you, much less did I claim it’s true by virtue of his authority. It’s true simply because x being greater than 0 for any positive value of x. I have zero trust in your legal opinions. THAT is the baseline here. Presumably you have a different opinion than I do.
“Lest assume that you “do NOT like Reinhardts outcome” – does that result in a contradiction with other asserts of yours ? Of course it does.”
Go ahead and actually PRODUCE those “other asserts” of mine that you claim it contradicts. You cannot. You simply wave your hands and insist they exist without producing them.
“The moment you argue from Trust (or distrust) – you have abandoned formal logic”
[facepalm] But I WASN’T arguing from trust. I was simply voicing an opinion!!! I’m astounded that you didn’t realize that.
“No, it isn’t, and I already gave you a counterexample: I trust Clarence Thomas’s legal opinion over yours, even though I do not like many of Thomas’s legal opinions.”
That is not a counter example – it is a hypothetical.
Lets pick 10 decisions of Thomas at random. Do you think we can find 5 that you think are legally correct – even if you do not like them ?
Claiming to Trust Thomas is meaningless without actual proof that you do.
You have claimed you trust federal judges – yet you clearly do not Trust Cannon – despite the fact that she is an actual article II judge and Reinhardt is just an article II magistrate.
So this claim to trust federal judges is pretty hollow. It is OBVIOUS that something other then the fact that some of those in this are federal judges drives your choice as to which federal judges you trust and which you do not – but you refuse to own any basis for your own decisions.
“It is entirely a statement that I have ZERO trust in your legal opinions, and anyone whose legal opinions I trust even a bit is someone whose legal opinions I trust more than yours, simply by virtue of x > 0 for any positive value of x.”
You have produced a near perfect example of a baseless opinion.
“I beleive X, but I have no reason for believing X”
““”I trust his legal judgment over yours’ Is an appeal to authority.”
It isn’t. I did not claim or imply that his legal judgment is true.”
Not relevant, you did make a claim based on authority – that is an appeal to authority.
It is true that you trust his judgement more than mine.
Your the one that has interoduced this multileveled rats nest,
your stuck with the FACT that the falacy need not be conflating the authority with the truth of a fact, but conflating authority with the merits of a judgement.
“I voiced an opinion about my own level of trust in the two of you, much less did I claim it’s true by virtue of his authority. It’s true simply because x being greater than 0 for any positive value of x. I have zero trust in your legal opinions. THAT is the baseline here. Presumably you have a different opinion than I do.”
Again the perfect example of a baseless claim.
You are openly saying “I prefer A over B because …. nothing at all”
I do not actually beleive you. Nor do I think anyone else does.
I have little doubt that your positions have a basis.
But you are trying to avoid providing a basis, because you have entangled yourself in the spider web of your own arguments.
You are logically committed to having no basis for your statements – because otherwise you contradict yourself.
““Lest assume that you “do NOT like Reinhardts outcome” – does that result in a contradiction with other asserts of yours ? Of course it does.”
Go ahead and actually PRODUCE those “other asserts” of mine”
I do not need to – they are here on the blog for anyone to read.
“You simply wave your hands and insist they exist without producing them.”
Do I need to produce the moon in my hand for it to exist ?
Your posts are all available for all to read.
And BTW I do not think anyone beleives you have no actual positions on anything – only baseless opinions.
“But I WASN’T arguing from trust. I was simply voicing an opinion!!!”
An “opinion” that has TRUST repeatedly at the center
I Trust X more than Y
is an argument from trust.
“I’m astounded that you didn’t realize that.”
I do not realize that because it is not true.
I am enjoying wathcing you tangle yourself in a web of your own weaving.
I failed to edit properly.
“I did not claim or imply that his legal judgment is true. I voiced an opinion about my own level of trust in the two of you, much less did I claim it’s true by virtue of his authority” should have been “I did not claim or imply that his legal judgment is true, much less did I claim it’s true by virtue of his authority. I voiced an opinion about my own level of trust in the two of you.”
Keep up the stupid words games.
Rephasing your response
“I said a bunch of things and even though it is pretty obvious why I said those things – I deny having any reason at all for anything I have said,
I am just one giant opinion with absolutely no basis, and nah, nah, na-nah nah you can not prove otherwise!!!!!!”
“You say you Trust Thomas’s legal judgement – How do we know that ?”
First, get the claim right. I said that I trust Clarence Thomas’s legal judgment more than I trust yours. You cut off the second half, which is essential to the meaning of what I said. I have zero trust in your legal judgment. My trust in Thomas’s legal judgement is greater than 0. Therefore I trust Thomas’s legal judgment more than yours.
Second, you know it in exactly the same way that you know all expression of my personal beliefs. Here’s another personal belief that I told you: I’d trust almost any judge’s legal judgement over yours, and that is a reflection of my not trusting your legal judgments at all. A simple fact of math: anything even a bit positive is greater than zero.
And I’ve explained that previously, but apparently you cannot get it through your thick head. Here’s what I told you yesterday: “It is entirely a statement that I have ZERO trust in your legal opinions, and anyone whose legal opinions I trust even a bit is someone whose legal opinions I trust more than yours, simply by virtue of x > 0 for any positive value of x.”
“your claim to truat Thomas is purely hypothetical.”
It isn’t. Again: GET THE CLAIM RIGHT — I trust Clarence Thomas’s legal judgment more than I trust yours. I have zero trust in your legal judgment (this is a claim about my beliefs, and I know what I believe). I have a non-zero trust in Thomas’s legal judgment (again, because I know my beliefs). Therefore, I trust Thomas’s legal judgment more than I trust yours because a positive number of any size is greater than zero.
“You claim that Trust is not the same as liking the outcome – that is actually correct. But for YOU it is evident that they are congruent.””
BS. Stop pretending that I’ve said or implied things I have not said or implied, or that you know my beliefs better than I do. People’s legal judgment (what I actually said) isn’t limited to “outcomes.”
“I do not beleive that you actually trust Thomas.”
AGAIN: GET THE CLAIM RIGHT. I trust Clarence Thomas’s legal judgment more than I trust yours.
“I do not think you make choices based on Trust – but based on YOUR prefered outcome.”
That you think that does not make it true. Nor was my claim limited to “outcomes.” People exhibit legal judgement in more ways than just outcomes.
“You claim to trust the 11th Appelate”
AGAIN, GET THE CLAIM RIGHT: I said that I trust the 11th Circuit’s legal judgment more than I trust yours.
And again, all of these claims boil down to the fact that I have ZERO trust in your legal judgment, and any positive number of any size is greater than zero.
“you do not trust Cannon”
I trust her legal judgment MORE THAN I TRUST YOURS. Don’t pretend to know my beliefs better than I do.
“you make claims out of the blue – that you Trust Reinhardt, that you trust the 11th Appelate (and by implication that you do not Trust cannon), that you Trust Thomas.”
AGAIN, GET THE CLAIM RIGHT: I said that I trust their legal judgment more than I trust yours. And people introduce their opinions into comments all the time. You introduce yours, and I introduce mine.
“You provide ZERO basis for these claims.”
It’s my OPINION, idiot, and the basis is that I believe it.
“the only obvious basis is that you like specific outcomes”
NO, John, the obvious basis, as I’ve pointed out OVER and OVER again, is: I have ZERO trust in your legal judgment, and any positive number of any size is greater than zero.
“posting as anonymous deprives you of trust.”
It deprives me of YOUR trust and perhaps some others readers’ trust, but I do not care about YOUR trust, and there are things I care about more than others readers’ trust for me in the comments here.
Notice:
Nowhere in this did you address the main issue that we were discussing:
“If it is true that
“A implies B
“and
“B implies C
“and YOU claim A
“Then YOU have also claimed C”
That’s a conditional (if) claim, you have not even identified A, B, and C, much less have you shown all of the required parts: that (1) I claimed A, (2) A implies B, (3) B implies C.
Still waiting for you to quote what I actually claimed.
IF you cannot quote A, THEN your conditional falls apart. IF you cannot identify B and C, THEN your conditional falls apart. IF you cannot show that A does imply B and also that B does imply C, THEN your conditional falls apart.
Any positive fraction is greater than zero.
But zero and that positive fraction come from somewhere.
You keep avoiding that.
We all know why.
Because there is not an answer that is not complete nonsense that does not run afoul of your own prior arguments.
Regardless, you have made alot of claims.
And you have repeatedly asserted that those claims have no basis at all – except for arbitrary numbers pulled from your ass with no foundation”
You use the word “judge” – but it does not mean authority. You use the word trust – but the measure of trust is just a random number pulled from your ass.
Summarizing – your posts are all opinions – and in anoymous world, your opinions are not claims about the truth. need no foundation, no basis.
Your Opinions have no attributes at all that alow another to be challenged, and therefore no value.
Therefore there is no reason that anyone should place any value at all in anything that you write.
And there is really no reason that you post at all – aside fromt he possibility that you like to hear yourself talk.
The rest of us should not criticize your opinions – because they mean nothing, they are just random valueless nonsense pulled from the air.
You have not answered why one thing is asigned a value of zero and another a non-zero value.
If there is no reason – then there is no value to anything you say.
Just to be clear logical implication is not the same as the normal meaning of implied.
Logical implication is like equality – except that it goes one way.
A implies B
means that where there is A there is ALWAYS B
But NOT where there is B there is A.
OMFG, you cannot even get Modus Ponens right.
It’s: IF P is true AND P implies Q, THEN Q is true.
You haven’t even identified P and Q, much less have you shown that P is true and that P implies Q.
“Not – “Q is implied”.”
Duh. But Q itself can be a complex claim, including a claim about something being implied (e.g., Q can be “you implied XYZ”).
AGAIN …
YOU said
If it is true that
A implies B
and
B implies C
and YOU claim A
Then YOU have also claimed C
That’s a conditional (if) claim, you have not even identified A, B, and C, much less have you shown all of the required parts: that (1) I claimed A, (2) A implies B, (3) B implies C.
IF you cannot quote A (“you claim A”, THEN your conditional argument falls apart. IF you cannot identify B and C, THEN your conditional falls apart. IF you cannot show that A does imply B and also that B does imply C, THEN your conditional falls apart.
Imply may suggest something that isn’t true. It is a weak word to use because it is indirect. It can indicate a logical relation between unexpressed and expressed ideas, but it can mean a degree of uncertainty. I believe it is a poor choice of words when teaching logic.
implication in logic is a one way version of equality.
Still pushing this preposterous nonsense.
MP does not require P or Q to be identified.
This is a stupid claim.
No Rule of formal logic requires the variable to be identified.
MP is valid no matter what P and Q are.
I do not need to “show” any of the things that you claim
It was YOUR argument.
I merely demonstrated that YOUR two assertions lead ABSOLUTELY to a conclusion.
Please take a course in logic.
I have already responded repeatedly to this pointless drivel of yours.
Viewers at Turley.org can read the entire thread, and draw their own conclusions.
Demands that I produce proof that is a few posts up in the thread is just stupid.
“I am not obligated to quote you just because you want that.”
When YOU assert “YOU claim A,” you actually have to identify what A is, and quote it to show that I did indeed claim it.
IF you cannot quote A, THEN your conditional falls apart. It’s that simple.
No I do not have to do whatever you want.
But since you need help – go back and read your OWN prior posts.
This is a stupid argument of yours – like all your arguments on this thread.
It is all effort to obfuscate, and avoid the actual argument.
Most of which you have slowly ceded in dribbles.
Read the whole thread and what as you drag it from sustance to nonsense.
Read the whole thread – it is obvious that you are avoiding substance as if it is the plague
Read the whole thread – an intelligent person would run away with their tail between their legs.
I should appologize – no one except you should actually read the whole thread – not that they are not free to.
It is a painful, tedious, boring effort by you to avoid any substance at all.
Watching paint dry is less torture.
Certainly the Special Master didn’t determine most of what was taken to be personal property,
Are you stupid, or do you think we are stupid.
The special master was to sort and retain everything responsive to the warrant. Thats it. Personal or PRA is not relevant. I have no idea how he was supposed to do that. The warrant was so general, it is impossible for a judge to determine what what was responsive to the warrant.
All “marked classified” (strangely a term that has not been used with Biden and Pence) and the ‘stuff’ near the “marked classified” how a judge is supposed to make that determination, proves the warrant was so ‘broad to be laughable. And a violation of the Constitution.
In the prior post I “defended” Trump – and to a lessor extent Biden, Pence, ….
Though Biden has a special problem – he was OBVIOUSLY reckless, and there is ZERO protection for having Classified documents from his time as senator.
In this post I am on the offensive.
NARA was obviously WRONG from the start – and they KNEW IT – otherwise they would have just gotten a court order.
DOJ was obviously WRONG from the start – and they KNEW IT – otherwise they would have just gotent a court order.
The reason that all but left wing nuts can see that DOJ/FBI/NARA/WH did not go to court to get a court order – is they would have LOST.
There are several FACTS here.
First – unlike any prior president of Vice President NARA/FBI/DOJ/WH went after Trump UNIQUELY – note NARA did not go after Clinton to recover the tapes. NARA has not gone to court to my knowledge EVER to get documents from an ex-president or VP.
In Fact the Government has NEVER gone to court to get POSSESION of documents from an exp-PResident or VP.
There are many cases that ex-Presidents and VP’s starting with Nixon have lost over ACCESS to their docs. But not a single on that has been lost over POSESSION.
DOJ/FBI/NARA/WH – did not want Access – if that is all they wanted they would have sought to have the subpeona enforced – it is near certain Trump would have be REQUIRED to give DOJ ACCESS to these docs.
They wanted POSESSION – or more importantly they wanted to deny Trump ACCESS.
That is actually ABUSE OF POWER.
Unnecescarily escalating this to a warrant was a criminal abuse of power on the part of the Biden WH/DOJ.FBI/NARA.
It is one that has NEVER occured before.
It is also likely this will eventually get out.
I am not sure why DOJ/FBI/NARA/WH wanted to deny Trump access to these docs – and I mean not just the allegedly classified ones.
But there are plausible reasons – any of which could be true.
They were hoping to find Damning J6 related information. That would be why they seized the entire box and adjacent boxes when they found one classified doc. Regardless that is OBVIOUSLY a violation of the 4th amendment. If they want J6 info they can subpeona it or get a search warrant for it. Using the Espionage act to get something that has nothing to do with the espionage act is MULTIPLE violations of the 4th amendment.
They were trying to prevent Trump from making public RussiaGate documents that he declassified but that DOJ/FBI/… still have not released.
By taking POSSESSION of Trump’s copy they prevent him from unilaterally making public these docs. Despite an exectutive order – which Biden is not going to rescind, DOJ/… are going to slow walk making the RussiaGate docs public until after I am dead if they can.
They were trying to prevent Trump from making public Biden syndicate information that Trump gathered as president that he likely declassified verbally or by action late in his presidency
By taking POSSESSION of Trump’s copy they prevent him from unilaterally making public these docs.
I would further note this all had to occur BEFORE the election – because if Republicans won either chamber of congress, no matter what the “classified” status of the Docs is Trump could make them public by giving them to the Intelligence committee that could unilaterally make them public – even if they were classified. Much as the judiciary comitte made Trump’s tax return public even though that is a crime.
It is likely whatever was in these documents – it will be made public soon enough. Democrats on the J6 committee have successfully misused the courts such that the Republican House has stronger and more rapidly enforceable subpeona power than ever before.
Have fun.
NARA was aware if Trump because the director of NARA had targeted Trump.
That BTW is already documented if you have actually followed early press.
He brought this to the Biden admin because he saw Trump carrying a Bankers box onto Marine One as he left the WH on Jan 20, 2021.
And decided Trump was taking “his” documents.
Which is a rediculously stupid claim.
The Biden WH Greenlit NARA efforts to harras Trump, They were part of this throughout.
At one point WH actions was required for them to continue.
While Biden is making a fool of himself – having scattered classified docs all over the place.
WHERE Biden’s docs were found is his BIG problem, not THAT he has them.
The FACT is this is neither illegal (except Biden) nor unusual. A massive amount of docs are paked in a very short period of time, some at the very last second. Decisions are being made as to what is personal and what is not.
The overwhelming majority of Docs 99.99% – Even with Trump go To NARA though not always directly – we are dealing with incredibly large numbers of docs in a very short period of time. Ex-Presidents do not have the resources or want to personally deal with millions of Docs.
Regardless, Ex-presidents and VP’s keep deliberately and sometime accidentally small numbers of docs – 10,000 rather than 10,000,000.
Including Classified Docs – again deliberately and accidentally. It is normal for NARA and the Ex-President to spend years getting personal Docs back from NARA and Doc’s the Ex-President did not want back to NARA.
To anyone but a moron that would be easy to understand.
Alone amoung the 3 people SO FAR found with classified Docs:
Trump was president and had the power to declassify – Simply by taking them.
Trump is the only one where the Docs were found Properly in a SCIF or ex-Presidents offices.
If you doubt that Clinton, Bush, and Obama still have Docs – Including Classified ones – you are a moron.
NARA is not going after them – because they would lose.
Had they followed the law – they would have lost with Trump.
You keep wanted ot Game the PRA or Caselaw. But there is no gaming it.
First the caselaw is what it is – even if wrong Trump is free to rely on it.
You can not manufacture a crime out of error on the part of several courts.
But the caselaw is right, because otherwise the PRA would be unconstitutional.
Again you can like it or not. You can challenge the case law, you can try to change the PRA as you want while being constitutional, or you can amend the constitution.
I do not have a dog in that fight. I do not personally care who owns presidential docs.
I do not care if all ex-admin officers lose their security clearances immediately.
I do not care if we decide that there will be no possible way for any ex-president or ex-vp to end up with classified docs, and if we decide to jail them in the future for that.
But as the current caselaw, law, and constitution stand:
Trump’s possession of Classiifed and other WH docs in the SCIF and ex-presidential offices at MAL was lawful.
Pence has the real claim to inadvertance, and does not appear to have any personal involvment in mishandling classified documents. While his were not found in a secure location, they were found in boxes Sealed before being transported to him and unopened since he left office.
And Biden has a serious espionage act problem. Classified documents were found places they can not be. And they were obviously moved – likely by him or at his direction after he was VP, and they were with certainty handled and left in insecure locations.
Nothing is going to happen to Biden – just as nothing happened to Clinton.
But YOU can not procede against Trump (and never could) without shining a spotlight on the massive double standards of democrats and left wing nuts.
Biden did exactly what was supposed to be done. Fully cooperate and turn over records that are clearly not his to keep
Biden didn’t turn over the papers. It took the Inspector General of NARA to get the Job done. NARA was sitting on the tranche of TS/CI documents. Until the IG smelled something fishy and cleaned up Bidens mess.
I have addressed “The law with you repeatedly”.
Reading things MOST favorable to you – just about every court since the later 70’s has gotten it WRONG, and SCOTUS needs to reverse all these bad decisions, and there is not constitutional issues with congress using the law to take posession of what since our founding belonged to the person who was president.
While I think there is a snowballs chance of SCOTUS ruling as you want, YOU still have the problem that these probably atleast a dozen decisions already exist and are all consistent – that should give you a huge clue your not going to get what you want.
But even if by miracle you do – Trump and all other former presidents are ENTITLED to rely on the CONSISTENT decisions of prior courts.
Further DOJ and the administration are EXPECTED to follow the CONSISTENT decisions of prior courts.
Quite simply that means Trump is Free to claim these documents are his personal property and NARA/WH/DOJ/FBI are REQUIRED to go to court to Challenge that claim if they disagree.
The DOJ/FBI/WH/NARA efforts to GAME THE SYSTEM – by skipping coing to court – where Trump could make his legal claims and DOJ/… could make theirs and courts could look at the prior decisions and decide whether to follow them is WRONG
It is politically weaponizing the executive branch.
It is more egregious that the democrats FALSELY claimed that Trump did with Ukraine. It is directly using the power of law enforcement to target a political opponent where there is no viable criminal claim.
This is what banana Republics do LITTERALLY. It is also pretty typical of left wing dictators.
I have chastised those on the Right here for demanding that left wing nut politicians get “locked up” over POLITICAL differences.
But for the most part they are just parroting those on the left.
I have FOUGHT with SM over Qualified immunity – and the courts need to trash that. Because it is MOSTLY the right solution.
When those with government power knowingly or recklessly infringe on someones constitutional rights – they should be SUED personally.
But we MOSTLY do not want to criminalize this, and we CERTAINLY do not want to do so by trying to bend the law.
Whether on the right or the left.
To those here and elsewhere talkng about sending Biden to Jail or Myorkas, or Garland or Wray or …..
You better have CLEAR EVIDENCE of a CLEAR CRIME. And I do not see that.
Fire them, impeach them, get the courts to drop QI and sue them. But do not weaponize criminal law just because you are in power.
And that is precisely what YOU are trying to do Svelaz.
There is not a snowballs chance that Biden will get prosecued for mishandling classiifed documents – though it is Crystall clear that he has done so CRIMINALLY. Biden does NOT have the “I declassified it” defense, and he does not have the “I own it” defense for docs he has from his time as a Senator. He has very weak versions of those defenses as VP. Which he has not asserted. Regardless, the “I did the right thing, when documents were found” is not a defense – it is at best a poor mitigating factor.
I would further note it is increasingly obvious that Biden did NOT “Do the right thing” – What he ACTUALLY did is obstructed USING his own lawyers, and DOJ, and NARA.
You seem to forget that Biden is both the Subject of the investigation into the mishandling of his documents, and the prosecutor
It is SELF-EVIDENT that a Special Counsel had to be appointed the very day that records were first found at the Biden Center.
AND that NARA, DOJ/FBI/WH had to stay 1000 miles away from that SC.
We already know that NARA tried to bury this and that it only reached the DOJ because the NARA IG caught wind of the coverup.
We do not know for certain that Biden is personally involved in efforts to cover up the discovery of classified documents at the Biden Center. We CERTAINLY know that he took more than 3 months to come clean. And We also KNOW that from NARA through FBI and DOJ a deliberate effort was made to hide this.
You FALSELY say Trump obstructed – that is Bunk. But there is ZERO doubt of obstruction regarding Biden – all that is not known is WHO obstructerd and WHO directed the obstruction.
And All crimes are MUCH worse when committed by those IN Government.
Here’s a copy of the letter from Pence’s lawyers about it:
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1617955800529666048/photo/1
Anonymous: my sentiments exactly…and, as you note…the documents were found last week, but not disclosed until today–so much for criticizing Biden for not immediately publicizing that some classified documents were in his home. Will this shut up the Fox hosts, who are paid to criticize Biden and Democrats? Doubtful. None of this exonerates Trump, though, because it doesn’t appear that either Biden or Pence deliberately took classified papers because they thought having them was “cool”, or that they claimed them as their own property; and each of them immediately took steps to get the documents back where they belonged. Pence, in an interview on ABC, long before this was discovered, flatly denied having any classified documents. OOPs!
Biden spread his docs all over the eastern seaboard. Pence had his office packed and delivered to his house by GSA.
Biden somehow got SCI docs out of the Senate SCIF. Something Democrat Senators have said is something they have never seen happen.
Reporting is Hunters e mail to Burisma, shared information that appears worthy of classification. Biden the VP was the Obama Administration point man for Ukraine. Ukraine was then, and today we know, still, wildly corrupt.
I’m not really a dot connector. But this is way more collusion than the scam Democrats hoisted on Trump.
Oh what a nice article….but Biden won’t be running for president in 2o24….he’s senile. Iowa et. Al. all will make sure of that! Then what? We kids our added good bye because his pride is so much he gets us into a nuclear war with russia? If anyone was a clear and present danger to the usa….it’s bidens. And all their self serving classified shit. At least when other people take home classified…they did it to save our country. Lajes86. 545499a.
I still say the records at UDealware need to be looked at. Maybe if FOX had been granted their FOIA request in 2019 or 2020, this would have been found out earlier.
Bank records. Money transferred from the Ukraine to Hunter Biden. https://www.scribd.com/document/404001731/Rosemont-Seneca-Partners-Court-File. You didn’t learn this from the MSM.
Thanks for releasing this. Solomon provided a lot of these transfers a long time ago and as you say, we still haven’t heard about them on the MSM. Good post.
Thank you
So many on the left do not grasp that there was plenty of evidence of Corruption by the Biden crime syndicate BEFORE the Hunter Biden Laptop.
While Faux impeachment I was taking place there were hundreds of pages of documents demonstrating a solid foundation to investigate the Biden’s for abuse of power.
There was more than enough justification for the phone call.
As some have pointed out – Zelinsky actually intoduced the topic.
Now for the record. Prepare for the Dems to remove Kam and then Joe and then you have a new POTUS and VP. Coming soon to a theater near you. Big derecho coming. Selah
I found Joe Bidens favorite song. Got your popcorn ready? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AALREbJZEZk. Joe’s got the footwork down to a “T”.
Ya wanna know how Joe Biden got rich without producing anything . https://www.thedp.com/article/2019/07/joe-biden-tax-returns-penn-president-2020. Ya gotta hand it to him he taught his son well. He said, heres the scam son. You find a gig where ya get paid for doing nothing. You should follow up on that Burisma lead I gave you pronto. Never let a good lead go cold. Just tell em Joe sent ya and you’ll be in like Flinn. By the way, don’t forget to send me my little finders fee cause I got a rock wall that needs tending to thats right next to my garage that has the Ukraine stuff in it. The boy learned his lessons from an international master. I’m sure the Bitcoin guy showed up at the garage to get a few pointers. It’s easy if you can get it and it’s easy if you try.
The FBI continues to demonstrate a corrupt culture at its very core.
Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Southern District of New York
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, January 23, 2023
Former Special Agent In Charge Of The New York FBI Counterintelligence Division Charged With Violating U.S. Sanctions On Russia
CHARLES MCGONIGAL, 54, of New York, New York, and SERGEY SHESTAKOV, 69, of Morris, Connecticut, are charged with one count of conspiring to violate and evade U.S. sanctions, in violation of the IEEPA, one count of violating the IEEPA, one count of conspiring to commit money laundering, and one count of money laundering, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
the DOJ Press Release fails to mention that CHARLES MCGONIGAL…..had been involved in a multiyear investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. according to the WSJ
If that does not beat all. Joe Biden could not be reached for comment given his vicariously, scattered
braintop secret classified documentsJohn Adams warned us:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other
Francis Bacon, Adam Smith, John Locke, Rene Descartes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton and other Age of Enlightenment scholars would have agreed.
😜
Apparently Deripaska corrupted McGonical as well as Manafort.
Hillary Clinton paid for Deripaska too? Not surprising in the slightest
Lock her up!
There are so many examples.
Richard Jewel.
Wacco,
Ruby Ridge,
The Anthrax letters.
The US Womens Gymnastic team.
The Michinage Wolverines.
The FBI labs scandal.
The 2020 Election rigging.
How many examples of corruption do you need before you quit Trusting the FBI ?
I have no doubt there are FBI agents with integrity.
Just as I have no doubt the DC Field office is rotten to the core.
But this is not a case of a few bad apples.
This is an example of an agency with pervasive rot.
I want to believe there are good FBI field agents. Unfortunately they continue to follow orders they know to be illegal
Executing a search warrant over a PRA dispute, a civil, not criminal matter, should have had all the agents walking away form MaL and toward a TV camera.
Yep, the alleged crimes in the warrant really aren’t crimes at all, right?
Correct. No crimes.
Not anymore then Obama’s handling of PRA material.
The difference Garland did not raid Obama’s Home and Wharehouse.
The fundimental problem is the John Adams problem.
Without a working shared moral foundation – self government is not possible.
That is true right down to individual law enforcement officers.