Below is my column in the Messenger on former President Donald Trump revealing his defense to the damaging audiotape cited in the federal indictment. The defense could come at a cost at trial, but it is a calculated risk for the court of public opinion.
Here is the column:
Since the arraignment, much of the talk about the federal indictment of Donald Trump has focused on the audiotape on which the former president refers to what he said were classified plans to attack Iran. When it was first reported, I noted that the only cognizable defense would be “bravado,” an admission that Trump was exaggerating but that the document was not what he claimed.
Trump has now adopted that defense in an interview with Semafor and with ABC News. The problem is that bravado can come at a cost.
On the audiotape, Trump is apparently motioning to material on his desk and tells two interviewers: “I’ll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack Iran. Isn’t it amazing? I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this. This is off the record, but they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him. We looked at some. This wasn’t done by me. All sorts of stuff, pages long, look. Let’s see here. It’s that amazing. This totally wins my case, you know. Except it is, like, highly confidential, secret. This is secret information. But look, look at this. You attack.”
When asked about the audiotape by Fox News’ Bret Baier, Trump insisted that “there was no document. That was a massive amount of papers and everything else, talking about Iran and other things.”
He has now admitted that he was engaging in “bravado,” declaring: “I would say it was bravado, if you want to know the truth, it was bravado. I was talking and just holding up papers and talking about them, but I had no documents. I didn’t have any documents.”
The admission was notable, given what Trump once wrote about in his book The Art of the Deal: “The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves. but they can get very excited by those who do. That is why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest, the greatest and the most spectacular.”
Trump’s past embrace of bravado as a signature style will help him in arguing that, while he may have been braggadocious, he was not careless with a document that did not exist.
Notably, Merriam-Webster defines “bravado” as both “blustering, swaggering conduct” (as Trump described in his book) but also “the quality or state of being foolhardy.”
The Justice Department, in its case against the former president, is likely to focus on the second meaning. Even if the Justice Department cannot establish that the Iran attack plans were actually on Trump’s desk, it can use the audiotape against him.
The most immediate impact is that any possibility that Trump might take the stand likely just vanished. In a case about the mishandling of classified material, “bravado” is hardly a positive defense. It is perfectly believable that there was no classified document being waived around — but it also shows a “foolhardy” attitude that could further taint the defense over the pictures of boxes stored in a bathroom and ballroom. Waiving around documents while bragging that you kept classified material undermines claims that you took such documents seriously.
The greatest impact, however, is that it demolishes Trump’s defense that he declassified all of the documents. At the end of the audiotape, Trump states: “When I was president, I could have declassified it, now I can’t.”
That also could be bravado — but it is clearly baffling for a president who insisted that he could declassify material with a thought.
It effectively means that Trump is left with threshold challenges against the use of the Espionage Act, arguing that fights over presidential papers are supposed to be addressed under the civil provisions of the Presidential Records Act. Trump repeated that defense this week.
The odds are against Trump on ultimately prevailing with that argument in the courts. However, even if he did, it still could leave false-statement and obstruction charges on the table. And, at age 77, Trump cannot leave one count remaining if he wants to avoid the threat of a potentially terminal prison sentence.
Trump, however, is not without a strategy, albeit a high-risk one. The bravado defense is likely to play better with the public than a court. According to one recent poll, a majority of the public views the indictment as politically motivated or even as election interference. Some Republican presidential candidates have stated already that they will (or would consider) pardons for Trump if they are elected in 2024. As I have previously argued, Trump could give himself a self-pardon, too — including a prospective pardon before any conviction. Thus, if Trump can delay the trial until after the election, Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith may never see a jury in the case.
Trump also knows that while he cannot afford to lose one felony count, Smith cannot afford to lose one juror. With the trial’s transfer to Fort Pierce, Fla., Trump will have a far better jury pool than he would face in New York or, potentially, Atlanta. If the jury hangs, Smith would have to retry the case — a very uncertain prospect with a public losing its patience for the prosecution.
So, “a little hyperbole,” to quote The Art of the Deal, could go a long way where bravado works the best: in the court of public opinion.
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.
Not “bravado” at all, nor is it hardly the only defense. As Commander in Chief, he got to decide what was sensitive national defense data – just like other classified data. If he were simply referring to the MARKINGS in an off-the-cuff remark, there is no there there. As with all personal papers a President takes with him into retirement, they are automatically declassified and become personal property.
That’s not how it works.
You know, you could listen to the audiotape and hear him say that it’s still classified. Your last sentence is bunk.
Please cite the exact part of federal law that supports your statements.
So he could have “declassified” the newspaper pieces that he was fondling? Trump’s ‘bravado” is simply another name for his constant LYING.
Remember Ashli Babbitt
-January 6, 2021
Hmmm. In no particular order:
NATO deal sucked,
Paris Climate deal sucked,
Iran deal sucked,
our border (w Mexico) deal sucked,
politicians shipping our manufacturing jobs overseas sucked,
Obama’s jihad on America’s best future sucked,
the so-called green new deal sucked,
America’s vulnerability to oil producing nations sucked,
Public schools sucked – still do
All of the above Trump attempted to correct in order to protect the prospect of our common prosperity.
In light of the systemic depravity of the Swamp, Trump – like McArthur and Patton – is arrogant and necessary.
All the petty little ankle biters bitching about Trump reveal the content of their pathetic character.
Meanwhile, Blackrock is guaranteeing generational wealth to compliant politicians.
Hoka
Epstein: Yeah, let’s remember her. Has Trump, his campaign and/or any of his donors paid her family damages for the death he caused by lying about losing the election in 2020 and exhorting fans like her to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”? HE owes her family–BUT FOR his lies, she’d still be alive. Those Trump fans who have been arrested and/or convicted say that HE is the reason they went to the Capitol and tried to prevent Biden’s victory from being certified. Do you think for one minute that gives a rat’s rectum about her death, the criminal convictions and prison time his other fans went through because of his ego and pathological need to lie, or the stunning fact that his conduct caused them to go after Pence with the intention of lynching him? Think about that–the POTUS sat watching television for over 3 hours while his fans, believing his lie about being cheated out of a victory and that they were there to “fight like hell” to keep him in power, hunted the VP with a noose, shouting “Hang Mike Pence”. He sat and did NOTHING for over 3 hours. What if they had caught up with Pence and/or Pelosi? Think about that. When he did finally call them off, he said he “loved them”. Think about that. Then, remember Ashli Babbitt, and put her death in context.
Ashli Babbitt was a 14 year Air Force veteran who served our nation honorably in our middle Eastern wars. A loving wife. The daughter of a mother who was arrested for peaceably protesting her Ashli’s murder at the hands of the Capitol Hill police. Ashli Babbitt did not deserve to die. She was an unarmed woman who lost her life because of her political viewpoint. That is how we remember Ashli Babbitt.
Remember Ashli Babbitt
-January 6, 2021
I believe it is wrong to speak ill of the dead, but Ms. Babbitt “lost her life” because she believed the lies of a malignant narcissist who told her to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more” It’s not a “political viewpoint” to fall for the lie that Trump really won in 2020, because he DID know better, and subsequent investigations, audits, recounts, re-recounts, witness testimony, etc. prove he did NOT win, and that he KNEW he hadn’t won even then. He never had any rational belief that he could have won. All of the irregularities he and Giuliani cooked up that they claimed proved election fraud were bogus. They came up with a plot to try to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s victory, which they thought would throw the decision to state legislatures, most of which were Republican. They thought they’d just chuck the actual vote and give it to Trump. All of that was to defeat the will of the American people. Every poll predicted he would lose–he knew all of this, and yet, he lied to his fans. Now, Babbitt is dead and hundreds of his fans have criminal records and some are doing hard time. THAT’s why Trump cannot be allowed to get away with what he did.
Ashli I heard believed the Q was an honest player. I’ve not a clue what she was thinking J6, regardless she like many others shouldn’t have went inside that day & instead should have went to the spot where speakers had a permit.
Right now it’s believed among many the CIA, State Dept & other US intel groups had/have been running the Military Grade Q Psyops before & during J6 to aid their om going Coup against our citizen’s govt.
It doesn’t look like it’s going well for their Coup.
Oky1: you can believe all of the alt-right conspiracy theories you want to, which are all lies, BTW, but you cannot dispute that it was Trump who went on a “Stop the Steal” campaign to sell the Big Lie, he told his fans to come to Washington on January 6th, promising it “would be wild”, he chose that date because that’s when Biden’s certification was scheduled, hoping they could stop it, and advised them to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”. He pandered to their patriotism as vindication for his ego because he can’t stand the fact that he lost. HE and his ego are the cause of her death, and he OWES her family for the grief, loss of services, loss of love and companionship and other losses resulting from her death. She didn’t have a criminal record, and wouldn’t have broken into the Capitol but for the Big Lie.
FBI Whistleblower: Jan. 6th Capitol Breach Was Planned By Department of Homeland Security
22,200 views
·
Jun 28, 2023
8
Share
Download
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show
Kyle Seraphin gives his expert analysis on what governmental organization- other than the FBI- helped orchestrate the chaos and capitol breach on January 6th, 2021.
https://banned.video/watch?id=649c6bc80f10f54d2f972c21
She didn’t die because of her views. She died because she tried to climb into the Speaker’s Lobby — which opens directly onto the floor of the House — while members of Congress were still in the House chamber.
Anonymous, as long as you’re sure that the killing of Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed woman, had nothing to do with her political viewpoint, that settles it.
Remember Ashli Babbitt
-January 6, 2021
You are a barbarian and don’t even know it. The police officer endangered everyone in her proximity. Additionally there was no need to shoot as she was no a threat in that empty hall room with police officer’s guns pointing at her. It was a bad shoot killing a woman who was asking people to restrain themselves. When she was shot you had a tickle going down your leg.
Michael Byrd.
Remember the fearless, valiant and heroic man who killed Ashli Babbitt by deliberately and willfully shooting to kill and not disable her, not in the leg or abdomen, but in the head and neck area, from near, point-blank range.
Remember that courageous man who committed a lethal, armed attack on a smaller, weaker, unarmed and relatively defenseless female or woman.
Remember Ashli Babbitt
-January 6, 2021
Jonathan: “Bravado” and hyperbole–not to mention scamming–have been Trump’s stock in trade since he arrived on the real estate scene in NY. He didn’t invent the phrase “A sucker is born every day” but he worked it to perfection. As you point out, “bravado” isn’t going to be a defense in the trial down in South Florida. And that’s why Trump is unlikely to testify (again!) in his own defense because jurors will see through his “bravado” and posturing in about 10 seconds!
Your whole argument, however, about a “self-pardon”, probably which is constitutionally deficient, rests on some dubious assumptions. First, that Trump will get the GOP nomination and, second, that he will beat Biden. Do you really think a majority of voters would vote for a twice impeached former president who is a convicted felon? Really? Then is the problem that Trump has already been indicted on state charges in NY and likely to be charged on state charges in Georgia. No president, whoever that might be, can grant a pardon on state convictions.
In addition, Jack Smith only has to prove one of the charges in his indictment, which you admit, to put Trump away for a long time. Besides, it now appears Smith is preparing a superseding indictment with other criminal charges against Trump. Legal experts are calling this “37-plus”. You are living in an alt universe if you think that “if Trump can delay the trial until after the election, Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith may never see a jury in the case”. That’s wide speculation reserved for the non-layers on Fox News. It’s not the kind of reasoned logic we would expect from a seasoned lawyer and legal scholar!
It really doesn’t matter what he said. They want to nail him to the wall and will twist anything to make it stick. They don’t want someone in office that will expose why they are all compromised.
Trump trying the “bravado” defense is irrelevant. The audio tapes already have him admitting he did not declassify all the documents. The audio tape also points out that the recording was done in Bedminster not Mar-a-Lago. Meaning he moved classified documents around that he had no authority to retain.
Smith only released a small amount of evidence. It’s likely he had a lot more and Trump knows it since he has the same evidence now.
If he declassified all of it why are his lawyers required to have a security clearance?
Trump will not be able to defend himself from all the charges. That much is clear. Turley knows it and Smith knows it. All Trump has is the possibility of a biased jury to save him.
There’s also the backup plan smith has. Smith can move the trial to NJ since he had the documents in at his Bedminster residence. He could be tried there. Turley left that particular detail out.
One can be prosecuted for purely political reasons and still be guilty, but is it fair? For example, all the reports about the war in Ukraine initially come from leaked classified documents; Washington lives on leaks in fact. No one claims that Trump actually handed classified documents to the NYT, but traditionally that would not be prosecuted had he done so. Odd no?
We wouldn’t be having this discussion if Trump hadn’t stolen the papers after being told NOT to take them, if he hadn’t lied about returning them, if he hadn’t forced the NARA to obtain a search warrant and if he hadn’t cavalierly stacked them around various areas where anyone could obtain access to them. HE is the cause of all of this. At this juncture, all we can hope for is that the documents haven’t fallen into the wrong hands.
Trump trying the “bravado” defense is irrelevant. The audio tapes already have him admitting he did not declassify all the documents
Joe Biden;
“I was just thanking the — anyway, I started off without you, and I sold a lot of state secrets and a lot of very important things that we shared.”
An audio tape is not evidence without some confirmation that there was an actual classified document there. It’s not going to work for the Espionage Act because it would be using the act for something other than which it was intended. Granted, prosecutors try that tactic all the time but they are usually trying to get the subject to plea bargain. It appears that they were talking about Miley and how he wanted to attack Iran, or maybe it was a plan he proposed to Trump which was not approved. The military always maintains plans for war with many nations, including Mexico and Canada – and they have plans for war with us. If Trump didn’t approve the document, it may no longer even be classified.
The audio tape has trump admitting he did not declassify everything. It’s already lying to the DOJ. And it’s also evidence of unlawful retention of classified documents.
He is only stating that after he was no longer President, he could no longer declassify. Possessing is still fine.
No, possessing materials that were subpoenaed and that he had his lawyers claim were returned in NOT “fine.”
Isn’t this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? If memory serves me, isn’t the tape in discussion evidence in an investigation? Is it not unlawful to disclose (leak) findings of an investigation before it has been presented in a court of law? Where is the investigation of the person or persons who leaked evidence?
The list of lawsuits, investigations and impeachment attempts on the former President is incredibly long. He will remembered as the most litigated human in history. The “sensation” of him being investigated is long gone. The only thing that matters now is the final verdict, win, lose or draw.
Regarding classified documents. Government agencies are known to hit the “Classified” button on documents they wish to hide from public scrutiny, documents that might expose their incompetence and potentially criminal actions. That is how they hide billion dollar “accounting errors” and sweetheart deals with contractors such as 52,000 dollar trashcans. Again, the term “Classified” is not as sensational in real life as it is in a James Bond movie. It depends.
This also begs the question of why the panic and the show of force by the DOJ? What are they hiding?
We have no idea who gave the tape to CNN.
Trump had a copy prior to discovery. Nothing illegal about Trump sharing that copy.
The people ghostwriting Meadows’ memoir had a copy prior to discovery. Nothing illegal about them sharing that copy.
Trump will be remembered as a malignant narcissist and a criminal who brought down the Republican party.
How do you know Trump had a copy prior to discovery? The people writing Meadows’ memoir, and recorded it, may not have given Trump a copy.
*I wouldn’t let Trump walk my cat .. . but if he prevented Milley/Pentagon ‘unprovoked’ attack on Iran, or anywhere else, more power to him.
There were news reports that Trump had his staff make their own recording for him.
There was no suggestion that the DoD document was about an **unprovoked** attack. You’re imagining this.
A reminder that this document is not among those for which Trump has been charged. Other than showing Trump’s recklessness and knowledge that he had not declassified all of the documents in his possession, his statements about it are irrelevant to the charges on which he’ll be at trial.
Unless Trump takes the stand, he cannot argue in court that this was just bravado. And only a foolish lawyer would let Trump take the stand.
Anon – agreed on all points. I would not count it out completely, though. The defendant has the final say on whether he takes the stand. He can go against his lawyer’s advice, and Trump is no shrinking violet when it comes to following or not following his lawyer’s advice. But I think in the end Trump himself would realize taking the stand is ill-advised.
The defendant is the only one who decides if they take the stand.
Sammy: you are right–but Trump is someone who doesn’t listen to lawyers or follow their advice. It’s not like he hasn’t had access to quality counsel who have tried to give him good advice. He just can’t shut up or stop lying. His ego won’t let him admit that others know better than he does about what the right thing to do is. It’s part of his narcissism, and just like Narcissis from Aesop’s Fables, it will prove fatal to him.
Dear Prof Turley,
You say someone – (Gen. Milley or president Trump?) – wanted to attack Iran with overwhelming force!? What for? Regime change?
Why would that be classified? Who classified it? I thought only congress could declare war. .. or fund proxy wars.\?
It does sounds like Trump was trying to waive it around:
“It is perfectly believable that there was no classified document being waived around — but it also shows a “foolhardy” attitude that could further taint the defense over the pictures of boxes stored in a bathroom and ballroom. Waiving around documents while bragging that you kept classified material undermines claims that you took such documents seriously.”
Absent some clear and convincing justification for the destruction of Iran, I would have waived it to.
*waves hello \../
“foolhardy” attitude that could further taint the defense over the pictures of boxes stored in a bathroom and ballroom
In order to bring this infront of a jury, they are going to have to produce the document. Reporting suggest, it does not exist in papers taken in the raid.
No document, no testimony
Those pictures are meaningless, I doubt the pictures are entered into the trial. The President has personal papers. Storing them is not a crime.
All the pictures leaked to the media show a prosecutor that is busy trying the case in public, because his legal evidence faces serious challenges. All of the problems to date will cause lots of motions to exclude evidence. If not excluded lots of material for appeals, up to SCOTUS
Of course there can be testimony without a document. The witnesses can testify to his behavior, and the audio shows what he said.
And again: this document is not among those for which he was charged and is largely irrelevant to the trial.
Someone leaked the audio – to prove some point – and I don’t think it was the defense.
An unprovoked attack on Iran seems extremely foolhardy and consequential!
*they could put Gen. Milley on the stand .. . Trump could ‘prove his case’.
We have no idea who shared the tape. Much more likely to have been Trump or the ghostwriters for Meadows, both of whom could share it legally, than the DOJ.
No one claimed that the document describes an *unprovoked* attack on Iran.
Again: this document is not among those for which he was charged and is largely irrelevant to the trial.
Much more likely to have been Trump or the ghostwriters for Meadows, both of whom could share it legally, than the DOJ.
Other that the fact of the DOJ leaking dozens of staged photo’s claiming the documents are classified. Past actions are great basis for judging current acts.
In short the DoJ has lied non-stop in their ‘get Trump’ psychosis. It continues today.
( I listened to some of Morning Joe today while traveling. Joe and another guy spent the ~5 minute slot wish casting into the future about how Smith is saving back indictments to keep the scam going if the pre trial rulings go against him in Florida.Even radical lefties are preparing for the inevitable)
>”No one claimed that the document describes an *unprovoked* attack on Iran.”
President Trump is claiming that.
But he’s also claiming that there was no such document and it was just “bravado.” Which one is he lying about?
No. Trump, afaict, is claiming the ‘document’ was not there (there), just papers and such, but that he had seen it (classified) and thwarted Milley/Pentagon secret plan to attack Iran. .. which, ostensibly, ‘proves his case’.
Milley has, subsequently, said it was Trump’s plan to attack Iran.
*someone is lying.
Trump was either lying at Bedminster when he claimed to have a doc that he now says he didn’t have, or he’s lying now when he claims that he didn’t have the doc at Bedminster.
Trump’s a pathological liar. I don’t assume that anything he says is true unless I have evidence that it’s true.
The Supreme Court unanimously decided Monday to overturn former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s
Jack Smith has been caught lying in his prosecutions.
Does it matter?
We can hem and haw about it all we want but it is pure speculation on our part till the trial.
Then the evidence will be presented. The prosecution will make their case. The defense will make theirs.
In the end it will be the jury that says ya, or nay.
As a conservative I still would have no problem criticizing Trump. Since he descended those steps in 2015 and declared for the Presidency, his own big mouth has been his been his main problem (although not the only one). His program at that time was encouraging and caught fire and yet he repeatedly was harmed by his previous statements as well as those during the campaign. It continued through his presidency and it only seemed to get worse. He has learned nothing and that is the most discouraging part for any supporter or previous supporter. His ex wives and children showed more message discipline and judgement in their statements than him.
I am no attorney but I would expect that he is has trouble with attorneys because he is never constant, does not follow direction well, if at all, and simply goes about saying things with no regard to the harm that it does to him.
The most obvious case in point is his slanderous statements made after he lost the sexual assault case (civil) and proceeded to add even more to the libel case by his intemperate “bravado”. It’s almost a replay of the Westbrook Pegler-Quintin Reynolds’s case. If you do not remember Reynolds’s mildly attacked Pegler’s previous position in a book review and Pegler responded with such vehemence and poison that Reynolds ended up suing and winning a libel case against Pegler. Obviously this was not in Trump’s reading list. But even I, a non attorney, knew of that case.
I think the other Republicans campaigning against him are simply biding their time until the big explosion occurs and they rush in to pick up the pieces. Not a bad strategy and not without risk but generally a smart move.
case in point is his slanderous statements made after he lost the sexual assault case (civil) and proceeded to add even more to the libel case by his intemperate “bravado
The civil suit failed to find Trump guilty of rape.
Yet his accuser was back infront of cameras accusing Trump of rape. Trump called her a dingbat for ignoring the finding of the Jury.
The current president is compromised and beholden to at least one foreign power. But by all means let’s focus on what a former president may have said about some papers. If Trump were going to betray the country, he would have done it as POTUS- just like Biden. To treat this case as anything but politicized nonsense is absurd.
Correct. This is not about the rule of law, it is about the rule of politics.
In a case about the mishandling of classified material, “bravado” is hardly a positive defense.
I’m not entirely sure about that. The question for the jury will be factual – i.e., whether Trump in fact mishandled classified information – not whether Trump was foolhardy in making sensational but knowingly false statements about the documents on his desk. It’s a classic defense ploy to say, “The evidence shows that my client was exceedingly [fill in the blank: foolish, careless, mean], but that does not constitute a criminal offense under the statute the prosecution has charged him under.” That type of tactic seems tailor made to this case, and in particular, to a bravado defense.
Waiving around documents while bragging that you kept classified material undermines claims that you took such documents seriously.
Again, not clear. If the premise is that Trump engaged in bravado with non-classified materials (pretending they were classified), that doesn’t really speak to how he behaved with documents that in fact were classified, and that he knew to be classified. I’d think any competent lawyer could make that point convincingly to a jury.
Without a Video of the interview, an audio tape is left to everyone’s interpretation……. and imagination. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
The vast majority of trials do not involve videotape. Witnesses are called. There were multiple people in the room with him who can be called as witnesses. For example, they can be asked whether they say classification markings on the document he was waving around.
For example, they can be asked whether they say classification markings on the document he was waving around.
If this gets to a jury, the phony pretense of “marked classified” will have been put to death.
* saw classification markings, not “say”
‘Stupid’ has no complexion, sex, gender identity, preference or orientation, religious affiliation, place of national origin or lineage, socioeconomic status or political affiliation. It is endemic within the human condition and, moreover, there’s no vaccine for it. If there were, there’d be stupid advocates on both sides of the issue of whether or not it should be distributed world wide.
1) DEMs and GOP leadership agree that Trump has to stop his ’24 run. With criminal law, DOJ uses the most effective weapon to reach this goal: To weaken Trump on the campaign & MAGA rallies (multiple trails during primaries) and to influence public opinion. The current focus lies on Grand Juries with widespread accusations that leads to indictments. Trials and convictions are not priorities now!
2) Internals are still being leaked, most likely with a bank shot: Andrew Feinberg wrote a piece for Independent [1-2], yesterday. Although vague and with minor built-in errors (if some of 30-45 additional charges are for J6 in DC), the following tendency can be spotted:
* “Superseding indictment” in FL with additional criminal charges
* J6 “insurrection” indictment in DC [which prosecutors offers “queen of the day” deals for others and conduct aggressive interviews with immense energy (e.g. SS agents after Cassidy Hutchinson J6-committee testimony last year) to drop the case]
* following public discussions about disqualification from seeking public office due to insurrection (14th amendment, Section 3) and
* (state) indictment in Fulton County, GA in 8/23.
3) Not only is this personally stressful, time-consuming, and costly but Trump also needs qualified lawyers which is very difficult for him to find. This does not bode well for prestige criminal cases that are followed worldwide.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-giuliani-more-charges-b2366597.html
[2] David Kramer, former State Department Official, late Senator McCain aid and current Director of “W” Presidential Center spread “Steele Dossier” all over DC, including Andrew Feinberg, during presidential transition.
Trump has already given Iran a great propaganda weapon. Just from the ambiguous audiotape, Trump has already put General Milley and DOD personnel at personal risk by giving aid & comfort to Iran.
It’s also likely Trump could be in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for January 6 – a form of treason. When an American official takes a constitutional Oath of Office and then betrays their Oath of Office, that disloyal official is banned from ever holding governing authority in the future.
The U.S. Department of Justice has in the past maintained a “List of Subversive Persons and Groups” – those trying to subvert the American constitutional system. It’s quite possible, any citizens supporting the January 6 Insurrection/Coup Attempt (a form of treason) are now placed on a similar list today.
In the past the rules were very loose in placing subversives on the list. January 6 supporters are actually more legitimate than most past targets placed on these blacklists.
This Reagan hating nut says that Trump has given Iran ammunition??? Trump, the president that pulled out of the nuke deal, upped sanctions against Iran, pushed movements of accommodation between Israel and many moderate Arab nations, pushed Russia, IRAN’S ALLY, to the backburner with our energy boom and strong sanctions against them and was sitting tight with Saudi Arabia, was supposedly helping Iran.
Meanwhile back on planet earth we have Joe Biden who has not been critical of Iran, alienated Saudi Arabia, conceded to China a serious place in the ME, weakened Israel and has basically foisted a China-Russia-Iran alliance against us.
PS. This Anti-Reagan loon is probably a 65 year old guy (I am even older so this isn’t an age attack), maybe a professor or ex-professor, Vermont Ben and Jerry loving former lefty who is now a radical something or other. This is a guy who years ago hated only Nixon, claimed that Alger Hiss was innocent, claimed that the Rosenberg traitors were innocent, claimed that the USSR was only reacting to an aggressive America etc etc.
He hated Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush and Trump, but loved Carter, Clinton, Obama and now Biden.
I would like to start at the beginning.
Predicate for the warrant.
Overly broad warrant.
“Marked Classified”
Marked classified is an admission by prosecutors the documents are declassified.
This whole thing centers on the Power of the President having final say as to what is Presidential, and what is Personal.
The govt has not explained what power they posses to challenge the Presidents claim.
Are you having a stroke? Marked classified means classified. Also the president does not have final sag as to what is personal. The PRA says nothing of the sort.
Sammy, didn’t Hilary Clinton have communications that were marked Classified? Yes or no. Didn’t Biden have papers that were marked Classified? Yes or no.
The issue isn’t whether Trump broke the law it is that only the Republican is being charged with breaking the law.
Trump’s the only one who not only resisted giving all government documents back to the government, but obstructed and conspired to avoid it.
And if you want a good discussion of how it’s different from Clinton: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/703-ways-trump-s-mar-a-lago-conduct-bears-no-resemblance-to-hillary-clinton-s-emails
The PRA says nothing of the sort.
Great Sammy. You claim to have a controlling source to challenge the truth. So who does the PRA delegate the authority to decide disputed classifications?
(no, I am under no delusion Sammy wants to engage on the facts)
Again: many of these documents fall under the FRA, not the PRA.
You always move the goal posts. Refuse to address the power.
Who has the power to challenge the determination of the President.
If a FORMER president wants to challenge it in court, then the judge will make a determination, just like other legal issues in court. Do you not understand how courts work?
You tell me. Go read the PRA and post what it says about personal records.
“Marked Classified”
Marked classified is an admission by prosecutors the documents are declassified.
As a person who’s held a COSMIC top secret clearance, the quoted statement is a great example of a person who’s bought into the grand delusion scheme perpetuated by trump.
Trump needs to spend the rest of his life prison.
“Marked classified is an admission by prosecutors the documents are declassified.”
It isn’t.
“This whole thing centers on the Power of the President having final say as to what is Presidential, and what is Personal.”
He’s welcome to argue that. He’ll lose. The FRA covers many of these documents.
The FRA covers executive branch agencies. Lead by the President.
What’s your point? It’s still a distinct law and is explicitly not subject to the PRA.
My point is the President has final say in what is a Federal Record.
In a court, the judge has the final say.
He’s welcome to argue that. He’ll lose. The FRA covers many of these documents.
No. It is up to the prosecutors to name the office or agent that has the constitutional power to challenge Trumps assertion that all the papers in question are Personal records.
If Trump claims in court that they’re all personal records, then the DOJ can challenge that, and the judge will decide. There’s absolutely nothing that prevents the DOJ from challenging such a legal claim in court.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐎𝐟 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐚
How our culture, politics and technology became infused with a mysterious social phenomenon that everyone can feel but nobody can explain.
Philosophy & Culture By Joe Zadeh May 24, 2023
https://www.noemamag.com/the-secret-history-and-strange-future-of-charisma/
✯✯✯✯✯
Thank You
There used to be an old columnist for the Boston Globe that wrote about DUENDE and who has or had it. It was always a great read.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐎𝐟 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐚
How our culture, politics and technology became infused with a mysterious social phenomenon that everyone can feel but nobody can explain.
…..George dazzled Germans on all sides of the political spectrum (although many, with regret, would later distance themselves).
So did Bill Clinton but Democrats are still on their knees before him with no sense of shame never mind regret. Then there was NYT Pulitzer Prize columnist, Walter Duranty, who soiled himself while mesmerized by Joseph Stalin’s charisma
Clinton and Kennedy’s 3 Secrets: How to Become More Charismatic
by Sebastian Klein | Jan 9 2015
If there were a spectrum for rating charisma, former US president Bill Clinton would score off the chart
https://www.blinkist.com/magazine/posts/clinton-kennedys-3-secrets-become-charismatic
But yeah, The New Reich, Nazis, charisma….
Think before you post such slop. OTOH perhaps you would have loved living in Joseph Stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China, in which case, Cuba, Venezuela and N. Korea await your pompous arrival
A complete reading of the Content+Context and the ability of Comprehension is required for a full Understanding.
You’re missing something.
Thanks for clarifying the issues succinctly.