IndyFront
Well-known member
I think they mean both sides are actively going after Trump, i.e. the Chris Christie's and Mike Pence's of the world are also going after him in addition to the liberals
Trump Investigations Thread
- Thread starter Rocinante
- Start date
Airedale260
Well-known member
Oh, it’s absolutely a partisan hit job, at least led by the upper echelons (though the rank and file are probably pissed off for Trump trying to act yet again like rules don’t apply to him). I’m not disputing that.
And yes, in an ideal world, Clinton would already be in jail and Biden would have been impeached and removed from office pending a criminal trial.
Unfortunately, that isn’t happening. But just because one side gets away with it, doesn’t mean the other side should get a pass, either. What *should* happen is that, once Biden is out of office (assuming he doesn’t die first), he and Hunter get investigated and charged (assuming they have a strong enough case) for money laundering and public corruption (along with whatever else).
He’s talking about how Trump has actively been calling for the weaponization of the DOJ in retaliation for the investigation. In fact that was what Trump was mainly pissy about after Rosenstein left, that the DOJ under Barr was refusing to go after his political enemies without a rock solid reason. Which is how it’s *supposed* to work.
Trump in this case just doesn’t give a shit; he’s explicitly looking to get revenge.
Bigking321
Well-known member
Ah. I suppose that makes sense. The establishment going after people that threaten them and leaving themselves alone.
Revenge is the best way to make it stop happening. Not getting revenge just invites more abuse's
Strongly worded letters...And demonizing the populist right aka the only people doing anything.
Sobek
Disgusting Scalie
It is a lot harder for the DOJ to refuse Trump's demands for blood now because they already set the precedent of ruling parties being able to go full South America on the opponent. They either do it and slide the US further into Banana Republic or refuse and give up any legitimacy they ever had.
Everyone loses.
All because it was supposed to be HER TURN WAAAAAAAAH!
Everyone loses.
All because it was supposed to be HER TURN WAAAAAAAAH!
my money is them refusing and giving up their legitimacy.
It wont hit them at first because this is just the start of the process but the DOJ will get a massive purge and replacement sooner or later.
IndyFront
Well-known member
And all they ever have is "Buttery Mails!" they scream even though said emails exposed how Clinton and her operatives elevated Trump because they thought he'd be "easier to beat"
Lulzy lulzy lulz
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Judicial Watch vs NARA set precedent that the President gets to decide what is and is not his own personal records, and he gets to keep said records.
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 | Casetext Search + Citator
Read Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
Given that he declassified anything, there is no grounds for saying 'he can't have that because it's classified and therefore unsafe to be out in public either.'
So no, this absolutely is partisan activists in the government ignoring established law to try to 'gotcha' Trump, and whether a document has 'classified markings' on it doesn't matter two shits. That's just them trying to find an excuse.
It isn't even 'they wouldn't do this to a Democrat President,' it's 'they actively established that the government doesn't get to do this to protect a Democrat President' already.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
In the same post that you quoted, Airedale addressed this case by saying
I'm curious what your response to this is.
49ersfootball
Well-known member
We'll find out soon enough this week.
Did Trump break the law with the papers he had at Mar-a-Lago and how he handled that entire affair? Very likely.
Were his actions unwise? Absolutely.
Do his actions (both in this situation and more broadly) raise to the level of raising serious doubts as to his suitability for the office of President? Yes (opinions may vary but this is very much own goals on Trumps part).
Have the Democrats weaponized the organs of the government, including the FBI and DOJ, against Trump? Absolutely.
---
If Biden had been smart then he would have let the special council hold his press conference and file his public indictment and then Biden would have spoken from the Oval Office and said that for the good of the nation and to avoid the acrimony from the appearence of weaponization of the DOJ against political enemies, he is signing a full pardon for Trumps execrable behavior and that he (Biden) trusts the American people to ensure Trump doesn't hold a sensitive position again.
Trump either accepts the pardon and essentially admits guilt or he public refuses it and claims he did nothing wrong. If he refuses the pardon THEN the DOJ drops the hammer.
---
As it is, whenever the next Republican becomes President they are going to gut the DOJ and FBI. A failure to do so is not politically or personally survivable. It also wouldn't surprise me to see the DoD on the same list.
A Republican isn't going to win without appealing to the populist wing of the Republican party and they utterly despise the burecratic class. And doing a major house cleaning is fairly easy politically.
---
All this said, Trump being charged is the best thing to happen to his campaign.
If he was charged in DC then he would absolutely be convicted but you wouldn't convince anyone save maybe a Squad member that he had received a fair trial before an unbiased jury.
If he is charged in Florida then conviction becomes very problematical. A straight not guilty is unlikely but a hung jury? Basically guaranteed.
Either way he is charged while the leading Republican candidate and he gets to make the entire campaign about the weaponization of the government by the Democrats against him. Two impeachments, multiple BS state charges by Dem stronghold New York, DOJ bringing federal charges under the Espionage Act for keeping documents when Biden stored a bunch in his garage and the "key" evidence came from piercing attorney-client privilege?
Trump has a lot of fairly compelling evidence to back up his claims that its all a Democrat witch hunt because they fear someone who won't kowtow to the woke corporatists who love ESG and trannies.
It wouldn't be enough against a solid Dem candidate but then the Democrats don't have one of those. They have Senile Joe. The election will also be when the economic pain is really starting to bite and Trump will be reminding people how he oversaw the Greatest Economy Ever until the Commie Flu ruined things so Sleepy Joe could steal an election from his basement. So elect him to stick it to those bastards, fix the economy, and generally just because he's the better choice. Or whatever.
Were his actions unwise? Absolutely.
Do his actions (both in this situation and more broadly) raise to the level of raising serious doubts as to his suitability for the office of President? Yes (opinions may vary but this is very much own goals on Trumps part).
Have the Democrats weaponized the organs of the government, including the FBI and DOJ, against Trump? Absolutely.
---
If Biden had been smart then he would have let the special council hold his press conference and file his public indictment and then Biden would have spoken from the Oval Office and said that for the good of the nation and to avoid the acrimony from the appearence of weaponization of the DOJ against political enemies, he is signing a full pardon for Trumps execrable behavior and that he (Biden) trusts the American people to ensure Trump doesn't hold a sensitive position again.
Trump either accepts the pardon and essentially admits guilt or he public refuses it and claims he did nothing wrong. If he refuses the pardon THEN the DOJ drops the hammer.
---
As it is, whenever the next Republican becomes President they are going to gut the DOJ and FBI. A failure to do so is not politically or personally survivable. It also wouldn't surprise me to see the DoD on the same list.
A Republican isn't going to win without appealing to the populist wing of the Republican party and they utterly despise the burecratic class. And doing a major house cleaning is fairly easy politically.
---
All this said, Trump being charged is the best thing to happen to his campaign.
If he was charged in DC then he would absolutely be convicted but you wouldn't convince anyone save maybe a Squad member that he had received a fair trial before an unbiased jury.
If he is charged in Florida then conviction becomes very problematical. A straight not guilty is unlikely but a hung jury? Basically guaranteed.
Either way he is charged while the leading Republican candidate and he gets to make the entire campaign about the weaponization of the government by the Democrats against him. Two impeachments, multiple BS state charges by Dem stronghold New York, DOJ bringing federal charges under the Espionage Act for keeping documents when Biden stored a bunch in his garage and the "key" evidence came from piercing attorney-client privilege?
Trump has a lot of fairly compelling evidence to back up his claims that its all a Democrat witch hunt because they fear someone who won't kowtow to the woke corporatists who love ESG and trannies.
It wouldn't be enough against a solid Dem candidate but then the Democrats don't have one of those. They have Senile Joe. The election will also be when the economic pain is really starting to bite and Trump will be reminding people how he oversaw the Greatest Economy Ever until the Commie Flu ruined things so Sleepy Joe could steal an election from his basement. So elect him to stick it to those bastards, fix the economy, and generally just because he's the better choice. Or whatever.
Airedale260
Well-known member
Well, there’s a difference between “going after Joe Biden for public corruption” vs “siccing the IRS to harass political opponents.” The former is fair game since there’s plenty of evidence already to suggest a case could be won (including from members of IRS-CI who have made that exact allegation that Garland is obstructing justice and lied to Congress because they have Biden dead to rights), vs. having the IRS harass James Comey because he lied to Trump (note that that is actually against the law for a president to do that because of Nixon; in fact that’s something else Trump is being investigated for, along with a securities violation, plus the Georgia stuff).
Sorry for the weird formatting. I thought the case name was v. Clinton, not v. NARA.
That said, I am also curious why you ignore not only my explanation of why the lawsuit failed (and am betting you didn’t actually read the text of the case itself, because the part of the Presidential Records Act (PRA) that provides a difference between official records vs personal notes:
“Enacted in the wake of controversy surrounding the disposition of President Richard M. Nixon's Presidential records, the Presidential Records Act of 1978 ("PRA"), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2207 (2006), governs the preservation and disclosure of Presidential records. The PRA defines "Presidential records" as:
[D]ocumentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.
44 U.S.C. § 2201(2). The statute provides that "[t]he United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records," id. § 2202, and it directs the President to "take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are maintained as Presidential records," id. § 2203(a).
The PRA distinguishes Presidential records from "personal records," defining personal records as "all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." Id. § 2201(3). The PRA provides that "diaries, journals or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Governmental business" should be treated as personal records. Id. § 2201(3)(A). The PRA requires that all materials produced or received by the President, "to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately." Id. § 2203(b).”
Note the bolded parts. I’m curious as to your response on this as well. And I’m also curious as to why you keep bringing up the “declassification” argument, when I’ve explained exactly why whether the documents were declassified or not (more on this in a moment) is irrelevant to the charges, but here’s an article from National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, himself a former longtime federal prosecutor:
Will Trump Be Indicted? | National Review
He’d have no real defense against an indictment — but bringing one would also likely rob Democrats of the nominee they’d prefer Biden to face in 2024.
www.nationalreview.com
“To prove a violation of the Espionage Act, the government merely has to show that the documents Trump mishandled contained national-defense information. There is no requirement that they be formally classified. Now, the fact that they are classified (or, in Trump's telling, were classified) is strong evidence that the documents did indeed contain national-defense information. But it is not evidence necessary to prove the government's case. Documents need not be stamped with classification markings for their mishandling to be actionable under the Espionage Act; ergo, declassifying them would not strip them of their status as national-defense information.
Declassification would be similarly irrelevant to the suspected obstruction crime, of which the magistrate judge who issued the Mar-a-Lago search warrant also found probable cause. That offense appears to involve the concealment of documents from the investigation — specifically the false claim, made by Trump's representatives on June 3, that the 38 documents they were surrendering to investigators were the only ones on the Mar-a-Lago premises responsive to a grand-jury subpoena issued the preceding month. The grand-jury subpoena at issue did not command the production of documents that necessarily were classified at the time of the search; it commanded the production of documents that physically bore classification markings. Again, even if there were credible evidence that Trump had declassified the documents, that wouldn't be a defense.
In other words, the declassification claim, beyond signaling recklessness, is just plain stupid.”
And, side note, even when pressed under oath, Trump’s lawyers refused to actually state they were in fact declassified, for the simple reason that in a criminal case, one has to put up or shut up, and lying about it not only lands the client in massive hot water, but also lands the lawyers in deep shit as well, and the average lawyer is not going to risk jail time for something so stupid.
Doomsought
Well-known member
If it does do what you say it does, Trump still did nothing wrong because what you are describing is a blatant violation of the first amendment.
Which is one of the reasons bringing Espionage Act charges is always really iffy.
There is also the question of whether or not Trump ever officially agreed to be bound by any of the classification rules.
Normally, when you apply for and/or receive a clearance you have to sign a form agreeing that your First Amendment rights are curtailed in various ways (i.e. can't speak about the classified info) and dictating your behaviors with classified documents. Notably, if you have EVER held a clearance then you are forever bound to those requirements going forward (even if your clearance is revoked).
As President one is outside of the classification system entirely and Trump wasn't in a position where he had likely gained a clearance before his election. However, he might have gained a "normal" clearance between when he was elected and when he was sworn in (President Elect isn't outside the classification system but general practice would have them briefed on all manner of things before formally taking office).
Notably though, Trump isn't being charged under the various laws related to classified material. Probably because he either 1) didn't ever agree to be bound by them and/or 2) that brings up the declassification issue. If charged with violated the laws for handling classified documents and Trump takes the stand and says he declared the documents in question declassified while he was still President then the entire trial will be derailed into a legal question related to the Presidents ability to declassify and that would go all the way to SCOTUS (and have to be decided before the jury instructions, so basically before the actual trial).
Espionage Act charges avoid the whole issue of classified/declassified but open up the argument about the EA's constitutionality in the first place.
---
The Obstruction of Justice charges are a lot more clear cut given how the subpoenas were worded and the actions that Trump then took but that also gets into the issue of Trump shifting blame to his lawyers, the piercing of attorney-client privilege, etc.
Either way, this isn't going to be a fast trial. Even on an expedited schedule the legal arguments are liable to take months to resolve. Jury selection might run concurrent with that, but the Judge might also decide to slow walk the case in the hopes of getting it past the election so that it becomes a lot less politically charged (Trump pardons himself or he is no longer a Presidential candidate).
Otherwise you are looking at a trial and verdict basically right before the election. And EVERYONE is going to see that as a political shit show.
Political shit show also doesn't cover what happens if/when he gets charged in Georgia or for Jan. 6th related things either.
I mean three cases that have been a known thing for a while all suddenly being brought in an election year by anti-Trump Democrat politicians? There is just no way to make that one look good or like its not a political persecution. Especially not after Hillary's server, the FBI's antics, the two impeachments, and the Hunter Biden related scandals.
There is also the question of whether or not Trump ever officially agreed to be bound by any of the classification rules.
Normally, when you apply for and/or receive a clearance you have to sign a form agreeing that your First Amendment rights are curtailed in various ways (i.e. can't speak about the classified info) and dictating your behaviors with classified documents. Notably, if you have EVER held a clearance then you are forever bound to those requirements going forward (even if your clearance is revoked).
As President one is outside of the classification system entirely and Trump wasn't in a position where he had likely gained a clearance before his election. However, he might have gained a "normal" clearance between when he was elected and when he was sworn in (President Elect isn't outside the classification system but general practice would have them briefed on all manner of things before formally taking office).
Notably though, Trump isn't being charged under the various laws related to classified material. Probably because he either 1) didn't ever agree to be bound by them and/or 2) that brings up the declassification issue. If charged with violated the laws for handling classified documents and Trump takes the stand and says he declared the documents in question declassified while he was still President then the entire trial will be derailed into a legal question related to the Presidents ability to declassify and that would go all the way to SCOTUS (and have to be decided before the jury instructions, so basically before the actual trial).
Espionage Act charges avoid the whole issue of classified/declassified but open up the argument about the EA's constitutionality in the first place.
---
The Obstruction of Justice charges are a lot more clear cut given how the subpoenas were worded and the actions that Trump then took but that also gets into the issue of Trump shifting blame to his lawyers, the piercing of attorney-client privilege, etc.
Either way, this isn't going to be a fast trial. Even on an expedited schedule the legal arguments are liable to take months to resolve. Jury selection might run concurrent with that, but the Judge might also decide to slow walk the case in the hopes of getting it past the election so that it becomes a lot less politically charged (Trump pardons himself or he is no longer a Presidential candidate).
Otherwise you are looking at a trial and verdict basically right before the election. And EVERYONE is going to see that as a political shit show.
Political shit show also doesn't cover what happens if/when he gets charged in Georgia or for Jan. 6th related things either.
I mean three cases that have been a known thing for a while all suddenly being brought in an election year by anti-Trump Democrat politicians? There is just no way to make that one look good or like its not a political persecution. Especially not after Hillary's server, the FBI's antics, the two impeachments, and the Hunter Biden related scandals.
I hadn't heard anything about this. What happened here?
Apparently the audio recording came from one of Trump's lawyers and was a recording of an attorney-client meeting about turning over the documents.
Airedale260
Well-known member
Uh, no, it isn’t, because prior case law on it has ruled that the parts of the Espionage Act related to mishandling classified information are still in force (if they weren’t, Snowden wouldn’t have taken off for Russia, and people like Manning and Winner wouldn’t have won a free trip to jail). It’s generally accepted that access to national defense information also involves waiving of parts of one’s constitutional rights, because of the state’s legitimate interest in protecting state secrets. Trump is charged with it (more on this in a second) only during the time between when his term ended and when the FBI seized the remaining documents in August 2022.
Trump trying to argue he’s not subject to the Espionage Act would be hilarious because, if you note the dates the activity is “alleged to have occurred” (read: it very clearly happened but it hasn’t been proven in a court of law yet), it only lists the dates of the offenses occurring after he left office, i.e., when he was a private citizen and had no possible claim of exemption. More to the point, Executive Order 13526 details the process which a president or any other authority has to follow in order to formally declassify something -and since Trump never issued an EO invalidating it, he’s still bound by it. That is, there needs to be a written record stating X state secret was declassified (if a president blurts it out in public before formally declassifying it, the paperwork is completed after the fact). Since 1) there is no paperwork to state whether this happened or not, and also 2) During two conversations where Trump was showing some of these documents to individuals who weren’t cleared (one being a reporter during a recorded interview, in fact), Trump stated that while he was president, he “could have declassified [the document]” but now couldn’t, it strongly suggests that the alleged “standing declassification order” was a bullshit excuse. Same with when he showed someone else another document and said words to the effect of “I really shouldn’t be showing you this, so don’t get too close” again, also suggesting it was still classified (and even if it wasn’t, it was very obviously national defense information and thus transmitting (in this case, showing it to someone else) without proper authorization was an Espionage Act violation.
More than that, Evan Corcoran (the lawyer in question) was compelled to testify under oath after a judge ruled (and an appeals court affirmed the decision) that attorney-client privilege didn’t apply because of the crime-fraud exception (that is, because Trump and his aide Nauta hid documents from Corcoran’s search, and Corcoran and Christina Bobb made a false declaration to the Justice Department based on Trump’s and Nauta’s actions), attorney-client privilege didn’t apply.
Keep in mind, the key evidence in this comes from Trump’s own attorneys, who were trying to keep him from getting in any more hot water than he already was. Even after Trump had tried to convince them to break the law and lie under oath to cover his ass, Corcoran tried to avoid testifying against Trump.
The Espionage Act itself, at least the bit related to national defense information, has serious first amendment issues. Which is why it is basically never the basis for actual charges related to said national defense information.
The charges are usually all under the various classification related laws and regulations. Which the courts have all held have no First Amendment issues because the individual explicitly waves them and agrees to be bound by the rules relating to classified information.
If you have never held a US clearance and find TS/SCI documents and publish them to the world, or even sell them to a foreign entity, then you can not be charged with violating any of the laws related to the handling of classified information (they don't apply to you) and Espionage Act charges have basically never succeeded in such a case.
So if Trump didn't receive a clearance before he became President and didn't sign the appropriate forms (binding him to the rules for handling classified information) then he can not be charged with any crimes related to handling classified information and whether or not he declassified them is entirely immaterial.
The Espionage Act just talks about "national defense information", which can apply to declassified or non-classified information. So again, if Trump declassified (even if he did so under valid procedures and there was no dispute of the declassification) the documents that still wouldn't absolve him from liability under the Espionage Act.
Basically the questions are as follows:
1) Did Trump ever agree to be bound by the rules relating to classified information? As President he was outside of the classification system and had access to any and all classified information even if he had no formal clearance. He may have gotten a formal clearance when he was President Elect and, at the time, agreed to be bound to the rules but he also might not have (no idea).
If the answer is No, if the DOJ can't produce the piece of paper with Trump's signature agreeing to be bound by the classification rules, then any and all charges related to mishandling classified documents are out the window.
2) If Trump did agree to be bound by the classification rules then the question becomes: Did he declassify the documents in question? This is a complex legal question that would end up at the Supreme Court because an EO can not and does not bind the President himself and the President has the absolute, legal, authority to declassify documents if he so chooses. The law does not set out a specific formal process that the President must go through to declassify something, that is handled by executive branch fiat based on an Executive Order from the President. So charging Trump under the classification laws is a big legal can of worms and would make a prosecution incredibly complex and difficult.
3) The Espionage Act exists independent of the classification system. Any violation of the various classification laws would also be a violation of the Espionage Act but a violation of the Espionage Act can exist regardless of any classification issues. The EA also doesn't have provision for the President to declare something to not be "national defense information". So if you can't charge under the classification laws because the individual hasn't agreed to be bound by them then you only option is the Espionage Act.
4) The Espionage Act, in regards to "national defense information", is constitutionally dubious and the courts really don't look on it with any favor. That is largely the reason that the legal basis for the classification system is the way it is. This is also going to be a legal fight but it is one that is (relatively) cleaner and easier than the fight over declassification.
5) The obstruction of justice charges exist independent of the Espionage Act charges and the classification status of the files in question. Personally, I wouldn't have brought the EA charges at all and just gone for the obstruction of justice offenses because those are a LOT stronger legally speaking and on a LOT stronger legal ground.
Sure. And it is going to be re-litigated again when the DOJ attempts to introduce the evidence into the trial.
Trump will move to exclude the evidence on the grounds that it violates attorney client privilege. DOJ will claim that privilege doesn't apply because of the exception. The Judge will rule, the loser will appeal, the appeals court will decide. IIRC the initial testimony was in the DC circuit while this case will be in Florida, so that's also in play.
I've been seeing accelerationists argue that Trump's conviction would be the best thing to happen to Amarica because it would essentially cause at a bare minimum thirty or so million people to reject the legitimacy of our Federal Government.
Note- it probably would be close to a hundred million people.
Those same people don't really understand the implications of that.
Personally I do think Americans need to reject the legitimacy of the DOJ and Federal Law Enforcement in general but the real enemy to America is credentialism.
They can't fix the DOJ unless they demonize the culture that brought this social disease to its terminal stage.
Tldr; fixing the system treats the symptoms, the disease still lingers until there's a cultural movement strong enough to unfuck that.
But also fire all the glowies and their pencil pushing masters.
Note- it probably would be close to a hundred million people.
Those same people don't really understand the implications of that.
Personally I do think Americans need to reject the legitimacy of the DOJ and Federal Law Enforcement in general but the real enemy to America is credentialism.
They can't fix the DOJ unless they demonize the culture that brought this social disease to its terminal stage.
Tldr; fixing the system treats the symptoms, the disease still lingers until there's a cultural movement strong enough to unfuck that.
But also fire all the glowies and their pencil pushing masters.