Below is my column in The Messenger on the recent decision not to prosecute Rachael Rollins, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. The decision follows a pattern of DOJ refusing to charge its own. It is a league (and license) of their own.
Here is the column:
The Department of Justice’s special counsel, Jack Smith, is continuing his work toward possible criminal charges against former President Donald Trump. While I continue to doubt the viability of criminal charges based on Trump’s speech before the Jan. 6, 2021 riot on Capitol Hill, I have repeatedly said that the Mar-a-Lago matter could present a serious threat for Trump.
However, a recent (and little-reported) decision by the DOJ may complicate the final decision in the case with new concerns over a double standard in charging decisions.
Last week, the Justice Department announced that it would not charge Rachael Rollins, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, despite a referral from the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which found evidence that she lied to investigators and may have improperly sought to influence an election. Rollins resigned from office on Friday.
The OIG released detailed findings against Rollins for allegedly seeking to influence a Suffolk County, Mass., district attorney election last year. She also was accused by the OIG of lying under oath during an investigation into the matter. The report states that “on December 16, 2022, pursuant to the Inspector General Act, 5 U.S.C. § 404(d), the OIG referred the false statements allegation to the Department for a prosecutive decision. On January 6, 2023, the Department informed the OIG that it declined prosecution.”
According to the OIG, Rollins sought to help Boston City Councilman Ricardo Arroyo in the Democratic primary for Suffolk’s district attorney by providing derogatory information to the Boston Globe and Boston Herald regarding his opponent, then-interim D.A. Kevin Hayden. The OIG said the information included “non-public, sensitive” DOJ material that Rollins acquired as a result of her federal position. The material suggested that Hayden was being investigated for public corruption.
The OIG further found that Rollins leaked more material after Arroyo lost to Hayden.
The OIG accused Rollins of violating a host of Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, including Section 2635.702 (the use “of public office for private gain”) and Section 2635.703 (the use “of nonpublic information”).
The most serious charge was that Rollins “falsely testified under oath … when she denied” providing the non-public information to the Herald reporter.
The investigation also found an array of other violations, including disregarding ethical warnings on political activities and soliciting expensive sports tickets.
What is most striking about the OIG report is that Rollins took some of these steps after barely being confirmed by the U.S. Senate because questions were raised over her judgment and partisanship. Rollins was confirmed in 2021 after Vice President Kamala Harris cast a tie-breaking vote due to all 50 Republican senators opposing her nomination. Every Democratic senator voted for her despite the concerns, including a video from January 2021 in which she threatened the arrest of reporters.
The DOJ’s declination of charges follows a similar pattern that suggests a higher threshold standard applied by prosecutors in charging one of their own.
Conversely, this is the same department that pursued figures like Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn for false or misleading comments made to agents about a meeting with Russian diplomats. The media heralded that case, and legal experts clamored for prosecution.
Now, the Justice Department is considering charges against Trump for false statements given to investigators on classified material at Mar-a-Lago. (He also faces other possible legal action, of course, including potential state charges in Georgia for election law violations.)
With Rollins, after an investigation found that she lied to investigators, the DOJ refused to file any charges at all. It is unclear what the DOJ felt was lacking in those findings or the underlying evidence. However, as shown by prior declinations — in cases like the contempt referral against former Attorney General Eric Holder, or the determination that former FBI Director James Comey removed FBI material and, through a friend, leaked it to the media — the Justice Department often seems to find insurmountable problems when asked to charge a fellow prosecutor or investigator
The Rollins case could be raised by the Trump team with other declined criminal cases as evidence of selective prosecution, if Trump is indicted. Although some in the media will cry “whataboutism,” charging decisions are made in the context of other cases to ensure consistency and to avoid selective prosecution. While state and city prosecutors like Alvin Bragg and Letitia James may run for office on promises of selectively targeting Trump, federal prosecutors usually aspire to a higher standard.
The DOJ already has a full plate of previously declined prosecutions outside of the DOJ, from the Holder and Comey cases to the perjury allegations leveled against Obama national intelligence director James Clapper, and more. It also will face a reckoning over the classified documents found in President Biden’s various offices and residences; those documents were clearly divided and moved repeatedly, and Biden’s lawyers — like Trump’s — completed searches only to have more documents discovered in these locations.
If the past is any indication, most of the media would not delve too deeply into such contradictions if Trump is charged. And selective prosecution complaints are notoriously difficult to litigate. Even if the Justice Department did not secure a favorable judge for such a case, most judges are leery of adjudicating claims of motivation and bias.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has long maintained he is above politics and treats the DOJ’s targets equally without regard to political pressure. For some of us who supported his confirmation, he seemingly has shrunk in stature in office — but he has not disappeared. He will have to make the final decision in conjunction with any recommendation by special counsel Smith. Episodes like the Rollins case will only complicate that decision.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
Charlotte – it sounds like what you’re saying is that a meritorious selective prosecution claim moots out the whole question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence, right? IOW, even if the defendant is guilty, it’s a bar to prosecuting him, right?
Without an indictment, no trial! If an indictment, then defendant will argue. If s/he claims selective prosecution, then it’s a procedural defense and not one about the merits of the case.
Colloquially: A favor for a favor, tit-for-tat, give and take (quid pro quo). Or: Everybody cheated, why do you punish me?
1. Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendement) mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.
2. When the defense lawyers ask the AG for an interview, I conclude: While there’s life, there’s hope!
3 You wrote: “[S]elective prosecution complaints are notoriously difficult to litigate.”
Selective prosecution claim is an independent assertion that the prosecutor was not fair because he was biased and has brought the charges to reduce the chances of running for president. Such a claim doesn’t question the merits of the case! This argument says that’s irrelevant whether the defendant is guilty of violating a law, because there is clear evidence that another person were engaged in the same crime but was not prosecuted. Do we know if “Rachael Rollin case” covers the same crime?
What like lying to a federal official during an investigation? The liar’s paradox may work as a defense.
George,Papadopoulos served 12 days in federal prison for lying to the FBI during Mueller investigation.(process crime) [1]. During Durham investigation FBI attorney Clinesmith pled guilty to a felony count of making a false statement while working to secure FISA surveillance on Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Page. What did AG Barr do?
Many here argue, that the legal decision is made solely by the interpretation of the law: Why is there such a tug-of-war over the appointment of judges? For Trump, on a DC trial court there is nothing to win.
[1] https://spectator.org/mueller-prosecute-prosecutors/ (piece was published approx two years ago)
When Lesbians reject Democrats, you know the DNC cant be saved even with KY Lubricant.
Maybe the DNC would be easier to swallow if Svelaz / Gigi / Dennis / bug / Leftist Anonymous bounced jello squares off of their belly buttons loaded with lots of Vodka!
😉
https://twitter.com/HeidiBriones/status/1661475062858371075
Heidi
@HeidiBriones
i went to dozens of lesbian parties and events while they were still a thing.
what happened:
drinking beer
taking shots
dancing
k-y jelly wrestling
drama
toplessness and nudity
playing cards/pool
hooking up
what never happened:
all ages drag shows
people asking “what are your pronouns?”
we are not part of the “LGBTQIA+” mafia. that’s something different. it’s Marxism. you won’t find it outside of a few small left wing areas.
we are lesbians. we love women. biological women. otherwise, we’re mostly normies. we have all different political ideologies. we want to be left alone.
there is a reason they’re trying to erase us from the conversation. we destroy their narrative and everything they are trying to push. don’t let them. share my story and talk to other lesbians. we are vehemently against erasing women, and we are some of your best allies in that fight.
4:51 PM · May 24, 2023 · 6.6M Views
Musician Frank Zappa, referred to this phenomenon as the “Quivering Quim” episode
And that’s the story of the federal government in the 21st Century. The individual citizen is held to the highest standard by the laughably-misnamed “Justice” Department while political insiders are held to no standard whatsoever. The Merrick Garland standard that is that government prosecutors are expected not to show even a hint of propriety.
FJB – great to see you here again. I was wondering whatever happened to you. And yes, Garland is the most corrupt AG in American history. Tied for #1 with Eric Holder.
OT – NEWSFLASH
Dan Bongino says China is cyber prepping Guam, a massive, all-inclusive U.S. military base, and that the government has spent $290 million on potassium iodide. Bongino recommends buying food, water, batteries, ammunition, potassium iodide, etc. Gordon Chang says China is converting factories from commercial to military production. China countered the imminent, landslide reelection of President Trump with its release of COVID-19. It worked. China must execute its Taiwan invasion before the addled Biden leaves office. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan will deny chips to the West. The U.S. Navy has been recruiting with LGBTQ ads.
George: please explain to me just HOW Trump was going to obtain an “imminent, landslide reelection” of Trump when: 1. he set a record for low approval ratings in the four (4) years he occupied the White House–never even getting a 50% approval; he lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020; 2. EVERY poll predicted he would lose, which multiple recounts and audits prove he did; 3. the economy went to hell under him, partly due to his tariffs on Chinese imports, because he is functionally illiterate in fiscal matters. He doesn’t understand that the Chinese simply raised the price of goods to cover the tariffs, which the American consumers had to pay, and which has contributed to inflation. It also resulted in shortages of computer chips and consumer goods; 4. he deliberately lied about the seriousness of COVID: “15 cases will soon be 0 cases” ; “you’ll be back in church for Easter”; “it’s just one person coming from China”; refused to wear a mask or support public health efforts to curb the spread; 5. pushed for quack “cures” like Hydroxychloroquine, fomented distrust of scientists, and had no plan for vaccine distribution, storage of vaccines, or people qualified and trained to administer vaccinations; an estimated 130,000 Americans died just due to Trump’s incompetence, lies and misinformation; 6. the successful economy he inherited from Barak Obama went to hell in 4 years’ time–unemployment above 10%, restaurants, schools and businesses shut down for in-person transactions, leisure travel unsafe.
Trump didn’t have a ghost of a chance of “winning reelection”–in fact, he never “won election” in the first place because he cheated. He had to cheat because Americans did not want him. Scientists who have spent years investigating the origins of COVID have not arrrived at a consensus as to the source.
The “addled Biden” got more legislation passed in 2 years’ time than Trump did in 4 years’ time, and it’s all good: Chips Act to domesticate computer chip production, Infrastructure Act
that will create thousands of good-paying jobs for rebuilding airports, bridges and roads, Inflation Reduction Act to bring down the cost of prescription medications–insulin capped at $35 per month, paying down the national debt, improved benefits for Veterans… the list goes on.
Has anyone actually ever read any comment by GIGI? I am down to reading about 10% of Svelaz’ garbage but that is still about 20 comments a story since he comments 200 times on every issue.
As I said the other day, if you skip Svelaz comments you will save an hour a day, you will lower your blood pressure, you will sleep better and your IQ will go up 20%.
Hullbobby, LOL!!!!!!!! Told you. You still read my comments no matter how much you whine and moan about them. I can tell you just had to mention it again since you can’t stop the whining. Good grief man.
You STILL can’t count correctly. Seek some tutoring man. It’s getting embarrassing.
BTW, Thanks for reading my posts. 🙂
Svelaz, I read your comments for the comedic relief. Your a laugh a minute.
Of course many of us read you – and laugh.
HullBobby,
Gigi?
She rewrites history and whitewashes it to make the Democrats look better, while going on her usual TDS rants.
Sleezeves? Not interested in reading 200 comments about how it wants to groom 6 year olds. Pretty grotesque.
Just scroll past till it’s post is off the screen. That is what I do.
Yeah, when someone tells the inconvenient truth about Republicans and especially Trump, to which you have NO facts to counter–just call them, stupid, lying or mentally ill and discourage others from reading the facts. I routinely ask for counter facts and I NEVER get any substantive response–just ad hominem attacks.
Rollins and others of her ilk once again confirm the fact that moral and ethic turpitude have no complexion, gender, sexual, socio-political or economic preference or status, lineage or place of national origin. What some of the current crop have shown, in Florida, Ohio, and now Massachusetts as example is, that after having finally risen and had their shot at the proverbial brass ring, they are certainly and equally capable of being just as bad-ass corrupt and morally bankrupt as those they have accused of oppressing them across the decades.
My primary physician said to chill out on Memorial Day & take a mud bath.
It’s good for skin care & also reduces stress & anxiety. Oink, oink.
Other Juicy News of the Non-Prosecutorial Type:
𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐄𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐞𝐝’𝐬 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐇𝐚𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐂𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐮𝐩 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: May 25, 2023 ~
https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/05/new-evidence-emerges-that-the-investigation-of-the-feds-trading-scandal-by-the-inspector-general-has-been-a-coverup-from-the-beginning/
Just another day in Deoublestandardstan.
But not to worry, Lindsay Graham and other Republicans will write a strongly worded editorial for the NY Times.
Hullbobby, it’s not a double standard. It’s simply the nature of what prosecutorial discretion is. Just because a law of policy has been found in violation sometimes the context of the violation does not justify the time, effort, and resources to prosecute. Trump’s DOJ did this as well. What you don’t realize is how much power prosecutors have in deciding on whether to press charges or not. Does it seem unfair? Sure, absolutely. But unfortunately that’s how our Justice system works. That’s why we have plea deals and the ability to grant immunity in exchange for evidence to prosecute more serious crimes.
Police officers benefit from this discretion all the time. Is it unfair? Yes of course. It’s only unfair to those who are NOT benefiting from the discretion until it is. Then it’s very fair, right?
BTW this is post No. 3. I think. Are you keeping count Hullbobby?
That it’s prosecutor discretion doesn’t mean that there is not a double standard in place.
No. It’s not a double standard. It’s prosecutorial discretion. It’s a power they have that allows them to use their resources more efficiently and effectively when it matters.
For example. Police officers would be overwhelmed in a day seeing multiple motorists violating the speed limit which everybody does. The speed limit may be 65 and the law says going over it is a moving violation. If police officers didn’t have that discretion every car would have to be stopped, even those going 1mph over. Obviously that would take all police resources, time and clog the courts with thousands of cases a day. Having discretionary flexibility allows them to focus on real serious violation of speed limits. A car going 1 or even 10 mph over the limit isn’t necessarily a real safety or threat to the rest of the traffic. But a car going 100mph or even 50 mph over the limit IS more serious because it DOES pose a safety risk to other motorists or property. Right?
Prosecutors have discretion for the same reasons. It’s not a double standard.
If police officers didn’t have that discretion every car would have to be stopped,
No. all they have to do is patrol and cite cars an a regular basis. That visiblity will slow down the rest.
Everytime you spout off about some new field of knowledge, you expose you ignorance.
So a cop on every corner 24-7 is your answer?
Iowan2,
“No. all they have to do is patrol and cite cars an a regular basis. That visiblity will slow down the rest.”
LOL, that only means they are still exercising dissection on who to pull over, because everyone is still speeding. They are picking an choosing who to pull over despite the fact that EVERYONE is breaking the speed limit even if its 1mph over.
You made my point perfectly LOL!! Thanks.
Speaking of dissection, here is your chance, Svpatz. Make it official
Professor seeks males for testicle removal study
https://medschool.cuanschutz.edu/center-for-womens-health-research/about-us/-researchers/sean-iwamoto
Anonymous, I don’t take recommendations from previous volunteers. I’m sure you did not regret your participation.
Svelaz – have you ever heard of “abuse of discretion.” Discretion operates within limits, one of which is consistency.
Edward, sure. I have not said there isn’t abuse of discretion. Discretion is not always based on consistency. Only that they have the power to exercise discretion and it’s always been there. Like I said earlier, is it always fair? No. But it’s not always fair to those who don’t benefit from it. Right? That discretion may benefit trump supporters in the future. Will they complain about it? No. But when it doesn’t benefit them they do.
There are constraints on discretion.
But I will skip that for the moment.
YOU claim that discretion requires consistancy.
It is self evident that democrats are NOT consistent.
No prosecution of AOC or Waters,
Prosecution of Santos,
Slow wlak of Hunter.
No prosecution of Rollins.
Prosecution and conviction of Manafort, and Stone.
Slap on the wrist to Klinesmith.
Papadouls goes to Jail.
Trump under multiple investigations for conduct that is not a crime.
Conduct that many democrats have done.
Where is the GOP equivalent of the Collusion Delusion abuse of the FBI/DOJ ?
We are told Trump conspired with Russia – but Hillary actually did, as did the Biden clan.
In fact the Biden clan has conspired with just about every hostile governemnt there is .
People are not stupid – they know massive political bias when they see it.
C’mon Svelaz. The IRS shuts down the investigation of Hunter Biden and IRS sends its agent to Matt Taibbi’s home on the day that he is testifying before Congress and you tell us that there is no double standard. You explain it all away with the idea of prosecutorial discretion. They use their prosecutorial discretion to prosecute their political enemies and you tell us that it’s no big deal. Thank you once again for telling us so much more about what you and your Democratic friends are made of.
TiT, those two incidents have no relevance to what is being discussed here. We don’t know anything about them other than what it has been reported. Everything else is just guessing and assumptions and insinuations without evidence.
I commend little Merrick Garland for fiercely defending the double standard of justice in Amerika. Solitary confinement for trespassing at the Capitol building and no prosecution of a State Attorney General for lying to investigators. Seems about right don’t you think ?. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Joe Lieberman has a piece in the WSJ that puts the anarchy of lawlessness into historical perspective dating back to Moses, the Jews as slaves in Egypt and western civilization.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/god-moses-and-the-rule-of-law-shavuot-ten-commandments-lawlessness-defund-the-police-courts-c1972f45
God, Moses and the Rule of Law
Attacks on the police, the Supreme Court and the 2020 election all violate the spirit of the Ten Commandments.
After the liberation of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, God led them to Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments, the system of laws that immediately and for millennia since governed and elevated human behavior and protected security and freedom. More than 80% of Americans believe in God, according to a 2022 Gallup survey. The next time anyone considers a movement to undercut the police, to threaten the lives of judges they disagree with, or to ignore a final judgment of our courts, they should recall the disorder that existed before the God in whom most Americans believe gave humanity the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai.
Mr. Lieberman was the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2000 and a U.S. senator from Connecticut, 1989-2013.
This is why there is prosecutorial discretion. From a Merrick Garland’s memorandum on the subject.
“Accordingly, in selecting the appropriate charges, prosecutors should consider whether the consequences ofthose charges for sentencing would yield a result that “is proportional to the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct, and whether the charge achieves such purposes of the criminal law as punishment, protection ofthe public, specific and general deterrence, and rehabilitation.” Janet Reno, Bluesheet on Charging and Plea Decisions, at 1-2 (May 1, 1994). Such decisions should be informed by an individualized assessment of all the facts and circumstances of each particular case. The goal in any prosecution is a sanction that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to satisfy these considerations.“
https://www.justice.gov/media/1265326/dl?inline#:~:text=Our%20justice%20system%20places%20enormous,and%20effective%20administration%20ofthose%20laws.
Even though the law states it’s punishable by fines or imprisonment. The prosecutor still has discretion on determining whether the offenses merit and justify the punishment. Rollins resigned and likely will never be considered for a position similar to her previous one again.
It’s similar to the idea that while a law against jaywalking may include prison time the circumstances and the nature of how the offense occurred may not warrant the time in prison the law states. Sometimes the prosecution of the offense is not valid enough to employ the full enforcement. That’s why prosecutors have broad discretion.
You make me laugh. I mean, seriously, you do. You shill for these people. Hunter gets rich profiting from influence peddling, and you cheer “Go team” from your keyboard. Is it really worth it?
The bottom line is that the DOJ, who prosecutes people for lying to it (on the basis of sometimes-doctored 302s), has no moral authority to prosecute anyone else for lying to it, And you defend this state of affairs. Go team go.
SPO,
“Hunter gets rich profiting from influence peddling,…”
It’s not illegal to protist from influence peddling. Influence peddling is considered a form of protected free speech activity by the conservative block of justices in the Supreme Court. As a private citizen Hunter Biden is not breaking the law by making money.
A lot of people have no clue why prosecutors and police officers have the power of prosecutorial discretion. A cop can let you off with a warning or give you a ticket. His choice, right? He might be in a bad mood and decide to given you a ticket. OR he might decide to let you go because he was at the very end of his shift and chose not to do any more paperwork. His choice.
Bribery is illegal. The influence peddling led to bribery. Getting Hunter for that exchange might require the use of different laws, but Joe Biden is clearly guilty of bribery.
Where’s the proof that Hunter did something illegal? Mark Levin’s ranting doesn’t count as “evidence”.
Where’s the proof that Hunter did something illegal?
Other than your navel, where have you looked?
That’s not an answer. I want to know WHO bribed him, HOW MUCH was paid, and exactly WHAT benefit was conferred. If you can’t answer all three of these questions, then, admit you just fell for alt-right rhetoric.
Multiple people from many countries including China. Documented Durham Report.
The bank records are documented in the Durham Report.
Money.
That’s not responsive. What specific benefit did any country, including China, receive as a result of alleged “bribes”? The “Durham Report” “documented” exactly nothing. And, BTW, because your alt-right media won’t cover this–Merrick Garland had the right to pull the plug on Durham, but he didn’t. If he had, just think of the howling on alt-right media. Do you think if the tables were turned that Trump wouldn’t have commanded the DOJ to fire the special prosecutor under the circumstances?
“That’s not responsive.”
You asked three questions and all three were answered and documented.Check out CEFC for the benefits.
Anonymous, LOL!!! That’s not proof of bribery. You’re just throwing whatever sounds good to support your ahem…BS.
Stupid, bribery occurred. We might not be able to prove it because Biden has power over the IRS and FBI. The evidence is substantial but like most despots I doubt Biden will pay the usual price.
I want to know WHO bribed him, HOW MUCH was paid, and exactly WHAT benefit was conferred.
If that were true, that would be a first. For six years, all you’ve declared is that you know everything if the subject is Donald Trump. And for six years you’ve been proven time and time again to be monumentally wrong. However when it comes to the Biden’s, you suddenly have no knowledge of anything. Your Sgt. Schultz routine isn’t fooling anyone.
Trump’s crimes are well-documented and not based on innuendo or vague claims: 1. public records: lying about the size of his apartment and properties, so as to inflate their value for purposes of borrowing money; see Newsweek article, cited by me earlier today, quoting NY AG, based on tax records and an article published in Forbes that pointed out that Trump tripled the size of his Trump Tower apartment; 2. “I just need you to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have”; falsified records sent by Trump electors in swing states to the National Archives, claiming Trump really won the popular vote, which he didn’t, all based on the Big Lie: “Frankly, we DID win this election”; 3. “Fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”; 4. the payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall, documented by canceled checks, and for which Michael Cohen went to prison and lost his law license; 5. “They’re mine”–referring to classified documents he stole and then lied about returning. Tried to claim that he only kept folders marked “classified”, but not the papers that had been inside the folders–another lie. Tried to claim that the documents were packed by GSA or staffers–later blew this lie out of the water by admitting that he knew classified documents were being packed. Now, MAL employees admit that Trump told them to move boxes he knew contained classified documents before his attorney’s arrival to go through the papers for purposes of returning them to the National Archives. Information has just come to light, in the form of notes by his attorneys, that he was told by the NARA a year before he stole the documents that he couldn’t take them, that they were government property, and the formal process for declassification was explained to him. Trump claims that he “mentally” declassified them–which he knows isn’t true after being told about the declassification process by the NARA. Also claims that he had a “standing order” that if he took classified documents, this automatically declassified them–again, another lie based on what he was told by the NARA.
Now, what about any of the foregoing facts did I get “monumentally wrong”?
Now, what about any of the foregoing facts did I get “monumentally wrong”?
🤔😏🤣 I didn’t believe it was possible, but somehow you misspelled Trump/Russia Collusion.
Tax evasion, drug purchasing, potential sex with minors.
There a lots of things Hunter did that would lead to arrest but for protection by the powerful.
Anonymous,
“Tax evasion, drug purchasing, potential sex with minors.”
Ummm…I think you’re confusing Trump with Hunter.
Hunter was not accused of tax evasion. Just failure to report. He still paid it off with the help of a friend. Perfectly legal of course. Drug purchasing? Meh, It would be hard to prove after so long. “Potential” sex with minors? I think that’s Matt Gaetz. Not Hunter. Nice try.
Boy are you dumb. Hunter didn’t pay his taxes, Trump did.
Money was paid on behalf of Hunter but agents at the IRS have blown the whistle. Hunter is protected, but you don’t understand what that means either.
Trump doesn’t drink alcohol or take drugs. Hunters on video.
One can’t deal with a person who is both a liar and ignorant at the same time.There is no need to convince you of stupidity because you are too dumb. There is no need to convince anyone else because no one has any doubt about how stupid you truly are.
Look at the desktop computer.
Anonymous, bribery? You claim Joe Biden is clearly guilty of bribery but have zero evidence. You say a crime was committed without any evidence to support your claim. Bribery for what? What was exchanged? If you claim that Joe Biden is clearly guilty of bribery you should be able to tell us exactly what he was bribed for? What was it? You can tell us, can you?
“Bribery for what?”
Favorable policy decisions for communist China, as just one example — the details of which have been documented by me and others, countless times.
(And don’t aske me to repeat them, because you’ll just evade them, yet again.)
“don’t aske me to repeat them, because you’ll just evade them, yet again”
That is Svelaz’s modus operandi, lying, proven in the mini thread:
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.
cont. at: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/21/the-other-big-lie-democrats-fuel-doubts-over-the-legitimacy-of-the-coming-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-2153325
It really wasn’t that long ago that the FBI and DOJ used elaborate schemes to appear as though Lady Justice was blind. The selective non-prosecution of Hillary Clinton for using a private server to communicate classified information with President Obama was a turning point. After all, prosecuting Clinton would have exposed the President and we know how that turned out.
This was the start of a series of Justice Department shenanigans we would come to learn about: Cutting off key areas of inquiry; cutting inexplicable immunity deals; declining to use the grand jury to compel evidence; agreeing to limit searches of computers (in order to miss key time-frames when obstruction occurred); agreeing to destroy physical evidence (laptop computers); failing to charge and squeeze witnesses who made patently false statements; allowing subjects of the investigation to act as lawyers for other subjects of the investigation (in order to promote the charade that some evidence was off-limits due to the attorney-client privilege); and so on. There is a way – a notoriously aggressive way – that the Justice Department and FBI go about their business when they are trying to make a case. Here, they were trying to unmake a case.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/not-comeys-decision-exonerate-hillary-obamas-decision/
Today, the FBI and DOJ aren’t even pretending Lady Justice is robed, let alone wearing a blindfold and holding scales. Since 2016, they have proven to be a political weapon for the Democratic party. They don’t need to hide it, because they have the state-run propaganda machine covering for them.
NR and Olly nail it, again.
The OIG and DOJ use coded messages…Oink, oink.
“The report states that “on December 16, 2022, pursuant to the Inspector General Act, 5 U.S.C. § 404(d), the OIG referred the false statements allegation to the Department for a prosecutive decision. On January 6, 2023, the Department informed the OIG that it declined prosecution.”
Turley for some reason despite being an attorney doesn’t seem to understand what prosecutorial discretion is. Even police departments all over the country exercise this when it comes to their own when faced with possible prosecution by state AG’s. Plus, it’s still an allegation. Even Turley has no idea what Rollins allegedly lied about.
That Trump’s attorneys will use this in a possible defense against Smith’s charges in the document’s case is laughable. They are already too incompetent to mount what would barely be a credible defense. His own lawyers are quitting over the BS his defense will be if there is any.
President Biden and VP Pence’s document issues are irrelevant. For one simple reason. They cooperated immediately and did what they were supposed to do compared to Trump who constantly refused to turn over and deliberately hid documents that did NOT belong to him. Turley is right that this case is seriously bad for Trump, but is also seems he’s trying to ‘soften’ the seriousness of Trump’s legal problem by offering irrelevant excuses that have nothing to do with the fact that Trump did take and willfully withheld documents that did not belong to him. That’s not counting the fact that his lawyers lied to the FBI and are also facing possible jail time for aiding and abetting a crime of deliberately obstructing justice for Trump or at his behest.
The Rollins case will have zero impact on Jack Smith’s case. Turley is just looking for any excuse to minimize the seriousness of what Trump faces when Smith files charges and the mountain of evidence he will have on hand to present at trial.
tell us about your grandparents who defended Hitler killing Jews in concentration camps. They are very proud of your apologia for the Dims gaslighting Americans
Turley for some reason despite being an attorney doesn’t seem to understand what prosecutorial discretion is.
You have slid into retard range of stupid
Turley piece is a lengthy discussion of prosecutorial discretion. And what happens when it become a violation of equal protection.
You know what. The President of the United Stated can declassify anything he wants by any manner he can imagine. It is an enumerated power.
“You know what. The President of the United Stated can declassify anything he wants by any manner he can imagine. It is an enumerated power.”
LOL!!! Nope. It seems your ignorance is showing.
I order to declassify anything it STILL has to go through a process of declassification and be on record that whatever documents where declassified. They MUST be marked as declassified and record WHO declassified them. Merely saying they are is not enough or proves they have been.
Turley’s piece is a gripe on a double standard he believes occurred. He was not talking about prosecutorial discretion. Obviously you are not reading for comprehension. Try again.
More ignorance.
The President of the United Stated determines the rules for declassifying documents. Those rules can be determined on the spot, and no documentation is required.
You are free to argue the simple truth.
Instead of debate, identify the office or agent that has the power to challenge the President’s claim of declassification.
Iowan2,
“The President of the United Stated determines the rules for declassifying documents. Those rules can be determined on the spot, and no documentation is required.”
BS. You have nothing to prove that assertion. You’re just making it up as you go along.
There ARE rules on how and when a president can request declassification of documents. The process requires that there be a record of that documents were declassified and must be marked as such. The president has to prove and have on record proof that the documents he ordered declassified were indeed declassified. Trump or any of his staff have never been able to provide any evidence of his claim. if he indeed declassified documents he would have easily provided copies for anyone to see, because they are declassified. We all know his claims are BS. You don’t know what you are talking about.
A few days ago. Trump’s lawyer turned over his notes, after being ordered to do so by a federal judge, who determined that the attorney-client privilege does not apply if it involves criminal activity. These notes establish that Trump was told by the NARA, in the presence of his lawyer, that he couldn’t take classified documents, that there is a very specific procedure for declassification, that it cannot be done by inference, mental telepathy or by a nonexistent standing order that he claims he issued by which if he takes a classified paper, it automatically becomes declassified. Trump also deliberately had boxes of classified documents moved from a storage area his lawyer was intending to search to comply with the NARA request to return the documents before his arrival, so his lawyer wouldn’t be able to locate and return these documents. Even Turley can’t find a way to defend Trump for this one.
Gigi – you say “Trump was told by the NARA, in the presence of his lawyer, that he couldn’t take classified documents[.]” When exactly did the National Archivist, a glorified librarian, become the chief judicial officer in the country?
The National Archives IS expert in the process for declassification of classified materials. You don’t have to be a “chief judicial officer in the country” to know this aspect of the law.
Yes, and that lawyer has now been forced to recuse himself fromt he case.
The Judge and court have violated the constitution. This is a violation of Gideon V. Wainwright – “Gideons Trumpet” one of the landmark Warren court era decisions.
A defendant is not only entitled to a lawyer – but the lawyer of their own choosing if they are paying for them.
By f#$king with centuries old legal priviledge without any foundation. the courts have deprived Trump of a lawyer.
That lawyer now can not represent Trump in ANY cases.
Bragg is attempting the same thing in NY – trying to remove one of Trump’s lawyers.
With respect to your claim – it is irrelevant what Trump was told by NARA.
NARA is not the president. Trump was.
This is an already resolved legal matter – please read JW. V NARA
Here is the ORDER of the court
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.”
NARA does not have the authority to decide what a presidential record is – only the president does.
ALL NARA authority of any kind flows FROM the president.
US Constitution Article II, S1 The very first words regarinf the executive branch of governemtn in the constitution.
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
All executive power is the presidents power.
If the constitution grants a power to the executive – it grants it to the president.
If congress grants a power to the executive – it grants it to the president.
NARA has no ability to tell the president (or anyone above them in the authority tree) what he can or can not do with presidential reocrds or with classifined documents.
PERIOD.
I would note that While JW. V NARA is directly on point – the Clinton tapes were likely classified, and certainly met the PRA’s defintion of presidential records.
And Judge ABJ – that would be the same judge that presided over the Manafort and Stone cases. Determined that NARA not only has no power over a president – but none over an EX-PRESIDENT.
But this decision is NOT alone. There are two centuries of Scotus decisions that say that congress can not pass a law that goes arround the president.
Congress can not create an agency that the president can not hire of fire its director. Congress can not delegate authority to any agency that bypasses the president.
There is no NARA told the president EVER. NARA, DOJ, FBI, every lawyer int he US government can tell the president something and he is free to reject what they say.
I would note that not only is this the Case – But Biden and company KNOW this is true – as does Jackie Smith.
If NARA was correct – they could have gone to court to get an order requiring Trump to turn over documents.
They did not – because the first thing the court would have said is “Why is this different from JW V. NARA”
Here is the entire decision.
And AGAIN it is not a standalone fly by night decision.
It is one of a chain of hundreds of decisions – many by the supreme court that all say the same thing.
All executive power is vested in the president.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/JW-v-NARA-Clinton-Tapes-opinion-01834.pdf
Trump can do whatever he wants with his property.
JW. V NARA.
“BS. You have nothing to prove that assertion.”
US Constitution A2S1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
JW V NARA/
“There ARE rules on how and when a president can request declassification of documents.”
Not any that are constitutionally binding.
This is a trivially wrong claim.
“The process requires that there be a record of that documents were declassified and must be marked as such. ”
The process can require anything. the power to determine the process power vested int he president. PERIOD.
You are engaged oin one of those stupid philosophical arguments like “if god can do anything, can he make a rock so heavy he can not lift it ?”.
No government agency can establish a rule or procedure that binds the president.
“The president has to prove and have on record proof that the documents he ordered declassified were indeed declassified. ”
Nope. If the president ordered the records declassified – they are declassified at the moment he orders it.
“Trump or any of his staff have never been able to provide any evidence of his claim.”
Just a bald faced lie. We have been through this before. While there is no actual obligation to provide what you have demanded.
The FACT is that there are multiple Trump executive orders declassifying documents.
There are multiple news reports about it.
and very early in Trump’s presidecu the courts – at the DEMAND of the left decided that Trump’s tweets constituted executive orders.
“if he indeed declassified documents he would have easily provided copies for anyone to see, because they are declassified.”
Did you fail logic ? What something is not declassified unless Trump publishes it on the internet ?
Again while the president can not declassify something telepathically.
He can merely by moving it from a secure place to an insecure place. Like Clinton’s sock drawer.
“We all know his claims are BS. You don’t know what you are talking about.”
Look in the mirror.
Svelaz – we have been through this all before in massive detail multiple times and you have LOST badly.
The most critical reason you are wrong is the very first sentence of Article II – the executive branch, in the constitution.
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
NARA has no power that is not presidential power.
DOJ has no power that is not presidential power.
No government regulation can be issued without the president delegating the power to do so.
No government regulation binds the president while they are president.
No executive branch agency has any power over the president.
>”They cooperated immediately and did what they were supposed to do compared to Trump who constantly refused to turn over and deliberately hid documents that did NOT belong to him.”
As I understand it (sic), a sitting president has the constitutional authority to declassify anything whatsoever. Otherwise, one would have to rely on the National Archives and Obama EO 15552 with over 2000+ classification ‘authorities’. *note. whether or not Trump declassified the documents in his possession is another matter.
I disagree with Turley about classified documents being Trump’s greatest legal risk. .. and look forward to this going straight to the SCOTUS for adjudication.
*note. whether or not Trump declassified the documents in his possession is another matter.
It is an issue for the DoJ. Because there is no entity that has the power to over rule the Presidents assertion.
I’m sure it is an issue the DoJ is considering. Bill Barr says Trump’s declaration that he declassified the documents ‘probably won’t fly’ .. . but I’m not so sure.
In any case, it ‘all belongs to the people’ imo and if president Trump did declassify them .. . I haven’t seen any published?
*for obvious reasons, I think long past due and Extremely important that we figure out, asap, exactly who can, and who can not, classify information.
dgsnowden – It could be argued that his taking of certain documents at the end of his Presidency was a de facto declassification of the documents. Since the matter of declassification by a President has never been made clear, it is going to be hard to argue that any law was violated.
Iowan2,
“It is an issue for the DoJ. Because there is no entity that has the power to over rule the Presidents assertion.”
Trump is no longer president. The DOJ can do whatever it wants with the charges and evidence it has. He no longer has the privileges of immunity as president. He’s just a private citizen with a title of “former president”.
Is there a proverbial, ‘shineola or get off the pot’ time limit for pursing charges against a citizen? The, endless ‘we’re thinking about it’, routine is wearing thin.
“As I understand it (sic), a sitting president has the constitutional authority to declassify anything whatsoever.”
The president has the authority, HOWEVER, there is a process that must be followed and a record made. Trump has not been able to produce any record or anyone else has shown that what he claims was declassified was indeed declassified. The simplest test to determine if what he says is true would be to release these declassified documents to the public. Because they are not longer…classified and subject to FOIA requests.
Whether the documents were classified or not isn’t the issue. It’s the willful retention of documents that were not his to keep. He was required by law to return those documents into custody of NARA. They gave trump nearly a year to comply with the law and he still refused to cooperate. Biden and Pence immediately cooperated and turned over documents that did no belong to them. NARA has no reason to seek charges because the documents were returned promptly and without playing games and deceiving authorities. He’s already lied about handing over all the documents, especially when they were highly classified documents that were never supposed to leave the White House.
The president has the authority, HOWEVER, there is a process that must be followed and a record made
I have asked you before, but you always run and hide.
Cite the source for your statement. That will scare you away for the rest of the day.
Iowan2, what exactly are you asking? The statue regarding the process?
Here’s the source for your perusal.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2010-title32-vol6/pdf/CFR-2010-title32-vol6-part2001.pdf
It’s all there. Page 23 of the PDF is where you want to find your source.
I have no idea what you think you are citing. But it is irrelvant – again Read JW. V. NARA.
And try to understand what it means. If goes way beyond the PRA.
Neither Congress nor the rest of government can constrain the president in determining how to act inside of the presidents constitutional powers.
The CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations. Put simply it is the rules determined by the executive branch at the direction of the president.
Obama’s executive order regarding classified documents is binding on every member of the executive branch save one – the president.
Whether that president is Obama, or Biden or Trump.
The same is true of the entire CFR
SC smith is busy interveiwing NARA to determine what the procdures for classified documents are.
He is barking up the wrong tree. All NARA’s power and authortiy over the process of classified documents comes from the president.
Again –
Actually READ JW> V. NARA. You constantly keep ignoring it. You keep pretending that snippets from the analysis override the final decisions.
READ the order – NARA has no power our authority over a president regarding WH papers and documents, regarding what is classified or not.
If as you claim the PRA says otherwise – then the PRA is either wholely or partly unconstitutional.
Why are you still trying to find a way arround your problems with classified documents ?
You have wasted thousands of words spinning your wheels on this.
Even if a future court, even if SCOTUS should at some future date decide that JW v. NARA was error.
Every president from march 2012 through to a higher court over ruling JW v NARA is entitled to rely on that.
You can not create a crime out of – I think the courts decided that case Wrong.
You can disagree with Judge ABJ. You can be certain she is wrong.
You can even prove right – though that is not likely.
But you can not make relying on that decision a crime for acts that occured BEFORE the decision is overruled.
He was required by law to return those documents into custody of NARA.
Past court rulings have determined there are Presidential Papers, and Personal Papers. The President, as the head of the Executive Branch has the final say on which is which. Every President since the law was enacted has negotiated with the National Archives to sort out the Papers sent to the NA. That includes Trump. He sent lots back to the NA
Iowan2,
“The President, as the head of the Executive Branch has the final say on which is which.‘
Nope, clearly you haven’t read the PRA. (Presidential Records Act). The president doesn’t get to decide what is personal and what is not. What is plainly understood to be personal and what is presidential record is determined by criteria spelled out in the PRA. Trump or any other president does not get to determine what is and isn’t personal. They still have to go by the criteria spelled out in the PRA.
Trump was given the chance to prove what was and was not personal in the documents he had and he avoided it like the plague. Because he couldn’t prove what was personal and what was not.
“He sent lots back to the NA”
He was FORCED to send back documents and STILL deliberately which held more after lying to the FBI. That is what got him in trouble.
You clearly have not read the constituton or JW v. NARA.
“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.”
For the PRA to be constitutional the President must be free to decide – without review, what is and is not a presidential record and what is personal property.
That ENDS all the cases against Trump regarding MAL.
Further it makes all of them malicious and political, because all of this was KNOWN before.
Biden “cooperated immediately.”? He held on to and moved and left unguarded dozens of documents he never had the right to possess. He was not “cooperating” with the law.
Edward.
He was not even aware he had them. NARA was not aware either. You didn’t know that? Can’t argue he wasn’t cooperating when NARA was not demanding to have them back when they didn’t know they were missing. Duh.
When his lawyers discovered the documents they immediately notified NARA and returned them.
“He was not even aware he had them.” This is impossible to believe since he actually separated one part from another and moved documents from place to place. Even a nitwit like Biden would look at the piles of documents in his garage and think: “My God, those are classified documents!” But let’s assume he is actually the total nitwit you protray him to be. It doesn’t matter. He had an affirmative duty to care for the classified documents in his possession. “Not knowing” is a confession of his negligent handling of those documents.
Biden was caught with a Classified Document that came from a SCIF at the Senate.
There is no “he was not aware”. There is no way to get a classified document from the Senate SCIF without knowing.
His VP documents were moved multiple times.
Biden’s Secretary testified to this. She also testified that SHE did not pack classified documents and she packed his documents.
So again how did they get there without his knowing ?
The documents at the UofP Biden center were found in a manila enveolpe market Personal – likely in Joe’s handwriting.
Contra media reporting the UofP biden docs were “discovered” over a year ago – long before the MAL raid.
They were then shipped to Biden attorney’s in Massachusetts. Where MONTHS were they sat for months.
NARA was not informed.
Biden’s records were taken as VP.
The PRA does NOT give the VP nearly the same powers as the President.
Nor does the constitution.
Trump can claim these documents were HIS property. Biden can not.
The president has the power to decide that any WH document is personal property. The VP does not.
The president has the power to declassify anything unilaerally. The VP does not.
Senator’s have no power to declassify at all.
Nor do they have the ability to unknowingly take classified documents home.
Svelaz, you miss all the points of law, and instead insert garbage into your discussion. Are you keeping up with the news? It doesn’t seem so.
Trump had the right to hold and declassify information. Biden who left scattered confidential documents on his garage floor and elsewhere had no such right. That you are unable to understand the difference must have to do with your inability to tell right from wrong.
S. Meyer, you’re an idiot, as usual.
“Trump had the right to hold and declassify information.”
Sure, when he was president and living at the White House. When he went to MAL he broke the law. He had nearly a year to comply, long after he ceased being president. Oops.
Biden had authority to those classified documents. When they were found he didn’t try to hide them or play games with authorities. He immediately returned them. Because that’s what you’re supposed to do.
You know Jack squat about this issue and it shows
Do you think telling me I ” know Jack squat about this issue and it shows” is meaningful? You are a dope, so what you say has little meaning, and when you include that you are a liar, it means even less.
I have always been able to provide a defense for my position. You have reversed positions based on the wind, and when caught providing an indefensible position, you walk away to repeat your stupidity at a later date.
Why anyone would argue with you in good faith is an enigma to me. You have no ethics, are immoral, lie, and demonstrate almost no intellect. What you have said above is junk and more than one person has already told you why. Keep repeating your stupidity. Maybe someone will defend you, but that will say little about them.
If you don’t like the insults don’t reply to me. When you act dishonorably, which you do continuously, it is insulting to everyone.
“I have always been able to provide a defense for my position. ”
LOL!!!! No you haven’t. All you do is make incoherent statements that show you don’t know what you’re talking about. The rest of your post is just insults to compensate for the lack of substance in your incoherent rantings.
Look in the mirror.
garland is an activist. He acts, he does not think. He will prosecute. I can’t fathom why you think the little guy retains any stature.
“For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law.”
Oscar Benevides, former President of Peru
“Too many Fish to Fry” “Other Fish to Fry” “Bigger Fish to Fry”
I am getting very weary of learning more and more about a system in which we lost confidence years ago. If Benghazzi wasn’t enough to convince one of the stench of agenda driven ideology functioning at fever pitch inside our bureaucracy then the biden crime family and the Russian Hoax would offer no more surprise. My only question is this: just what will it take to engender enough revulsion in the population to do what we did in 1776 and throw off this tainted and corrupt tyranny under which we now live.
“liked” by 5