Trump Investigations Thread

[Free-Stater 101]

I am not saying that shit is okay.
I'm telling you from what they do, full destruction if the CIA would make us completely vulnerable to our adversaries wotgout a slow and rigorous rerestructuring

I understand to a point but intelligence agencies aren't something that should be overtly institutionalized or for too long.

They should in an idealized world be broken up and had their resources reshifted as well as their leadership every few years.

Ideally the CIA should have been broken up at the end of the Cold War and had all of Kissingers cronies reshuffle or removed before forming them into a new agency.

 

[Doomsought]

Actually I have to disagree the Supreme Court has no authority on the government’s actions outside the nation. Sure policies in the US can be stopped because they are unconstitutional. But outside of America the constitution does not apply.

Hmm, if it sticks, I'd say it falls under the jurisdiction of the JAG corp. That means summery executions are fair game when they really fuck up outside US soil.

 

[Zachowon]

I understand to a point but intelligence agencies aren't something that should be overtly institutionalized or for too long.

They should in an idealized world be broken up and had their resources reshifted as well as their leadership every few years.

Ideally the CIA should have been broken up at the end of the Cold War and had all of Kissingers cronies reshuffle or removed before forming them into a new agency.

Then we would be losing against China.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Then we would be losing against China.

They own the US IC, so we already are.

 

[Airedale260]

Sure. I'm not for full destruction of the CIA. I'm for destruction of the parts of the CIA that go off the reservation and refuse to stop.

Well, the real problem isn’t any component of the CIA so much as it is reining in the leadership. Like when Clapper (or was it Brennan?) was director and ordered CIA personnel to hack into the Intelligence Committee’s computers on Capitol Hill to see what incriminating evidence they had. The CIA’s inspector general investigated and recommended disciplinary action (if not outright termination), but the then-deputy director (Avril Haines, the current DNI) overruled the IG and nothing happened.

Giving the agencies’ IG offices more teeth would be the answer, not to mention actually enforcing the law against high-ranking officials consistently would be the real remedy. Most of the really egregious stuff comes at the direction of the White House or at least with its tacit approval (something the Church and Pike Committees found when this stuff was going on 50 years ago). It isn’t the agencies that are the problem, it’s a couple of people who need to be made examples of.

I want pretty much every federal law enforcement agency disbanded, or broken up with their powers devolved down to the state level with the various state legislatures providing oversight, and many of the agents brought up on charges.

The intel agencies need to be completely purged, reworked, every single last sin brought into the sun so they can be judged by the American citizenry and the thugs in suits need to be publicly punished and chastised.

The “intelligence community” is the single greatest threat to the American people, alongside the bureaucrats, and the media. In that order.

Damn the practicalities of it, disband the CIA now!

I keep telling people we’re just reliving the 1970s but nobody believes me…

Church Committee - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The biggest irony is that a lot of what the Committee found is that the White House (under both parties) was letting it happen. The tensions are still there, but it comes down to really needing to, again, hold the president and his senior people accountable (hence why the House’s Weaponization of the Federal Government is important). Problem is it’ll only last until the next time the Democrats take over.

And as far as states go? They don’t have the constitutional authority to do what you’re talking about (since it very explicitly puts the responsibility for the national defense under the purview of the federal government). And the Constitution was designed specifically to rein the states in so they didn’t try setting their own foreign or trade policies and undermine the Union. Nor do they actually have the capability to do what you’re talking about. Or…

Eh, I'm not convinced the state level agencies are much more trustworthy. If their misdeeds pale in comparison I put to you that it's likely only due to lack of opportunity. Just look at local law enforcement.

So reform is the way to go, not just because it's probably the only path that has a chance of garnering sufficient support but also because "repeal and replace" doesn't tend to work at the whole-institution level.

Oh, state agencies are by far more corrupt than the feds.

Seriously, @StormEagle , you want Gavin Newsom, or Phil Murphy, or J.B. Pritzker calling the shots and having the power to spy on people? Yeah that will totally end well for the country…they’ll be waging covert wars against other states and individuals who disagree with them.

That really depends on the state tbh, I think if the US went back to being a weak federal government and super highly autonomous states that only agree on the bill of rights then we would see things dramatically improve.

(Points at the Articles of Confederation and Shays’ Rebellion). Now imagine that happening even more often.

Now, on the other hand, undoing the worst excesses of the New Deal and Woodrow Wilson’s stunts before him, as well as making sure executive branch leadership is held accountable, is doable. The problem is you need to get a Senate that isn’t directly elected by people, because it needs to put the interests of the states ahead of political factions in the country. That means abolishing the 17th Amendment, but it’s long outlived any usefulness it once had.

I feel like Americans have a bad habit of getting into dick measuring contests with foreign countries.

It’s not a contest of any sorts; prior to Pearl Harbor we had the FBI, but for foreign intelligence we were mainly reliant upon the Office of Naval Intelligence (the Army wasn’t really big enough to matter before then). We didn’t have a dedicated foreign intelligence service, and so when Pearl Harbor hit we were really behind the 8-ball. That was why the CIA was formed in the first place (the other IC agencies came into being for specialized purposes akin to Army or Naval Intelligence). What should have happened after 9/11 was the CIA being given primacy to coordinate Intelligence matters, but instead we got another layer of bureaucracy.

Weird that you seem to think eliminating the FBI is less impractical than eliminating the CIA. Almost like you have a bias you're failing to account for.

To be fair, the probable solution with the FBI is just splitting off the Intelligence Branch and creating something akin to MI5 in Britain (under suitable accountability of course); prior to 2009, the FBI’s reputation as a law enforcement agency was pretty good -and indeed, the field personnel generally are very, very ashamed of the leadership in Washington. So splitting off the Intelligence function and having it function as a law enforcement agency again would probably be a better move (disclaimer: When this was under debate in the mid-2000s, I disagreed with it, figuring the FBI’s ethos would be enough to keep its worst impulses in check. I was wrong).

And yes, people love to bitch about Ruby Ridge and Waco, but those clusterfucks weren’t the FBI’s fault: They were ATF fuckups that Clinton and Janet Reno ordered the FBI to clean up. With Ruby Ridge, even Danny Coulson (the head of counterterrorism at the FBI and the founder of the Hostage Rescue Team) thought the planning for the arrest operation was absolute shit and was vehemently against it.

With Waco, Reno and especially Jamie Gorelick (remember her?) were pushing Clinton to order a raid because of the TV coverage and over budgetary concerns. Which wasn’t helped by the differences in philosophy and approach between HRT operators and the FBI negotiators that kept sending mixed signals.

But again, that wasn’t due to the FBI doing it on their own hook; it was terrible direction from the President and Attorney General (sound familiar?)

Ok, intermediate solution; all, and I mean all, IC activity has to be vetted by ALL of SCOTUS before it can be funded or undertaken, and if they determine something has to go or change, it's gone, no if/ands/buts or DoD/IC exceptions.

If the IC/DoD/POTUS cannot convince SCOTUS that an operation is justified, it shouldn't happen or continue.

First of all, that is a clear violation of the Constitution, because SCOTUS has no authority over the executive branch. Not to mention, we have a system of accountability in place, called the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. The solution is to require them to do their fucking jobs. Again, that was what came out of the Church and Pike Committees; it’s just that Congress has forgotten that it’s more than just a bunch of social media influencers.

Second of all, putting a bunch of lawyers with zero understanding of how espionage works in charge of having to vet even the acquisition of new computers or office space, or whether we can send any spy satellites over North Korea, is a colossal waste of everyone’s time and resources, especially in situations where you may need a decision in minutes.

I understand to a point but intelligence agencies aren't something that should be overtly institutionalized or for too long.

They should in an idealized world be broken up and had their resources reshifted as well as their leadership every few years.

Ideally the CIA should have been broken up at the end of the Cold War and had all of Kissingers cronies reshuffle or removed before forming them into a new agency.

The fundamental problem of intelligence agencies is that there is an inherent tension between an open democracy and the secretive world of espionage that is difficult to reconcile at the best of times.

Congress is supposed to exercise effective oversight, but many of them don’t, and so we are stuck with the current mess. And as far as “replacing Kissinger’s cronies” goes, that did happen; it was just that, as an overreaction to the abuses of yesteryear, too many restrictions were placed on intelligence operations over legal and moral concerns, which meant that 9/11 was able to occur. Which set off a repeat of the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, which was allowed to grow and result in the messes of the 1970s.

And to get back on the actual topic of this thread…it’s why I have zero faith in Trump actually doing anything. He’s only interested in using it against anyone he considers an enemy, rather than wholesale reform so that nobody can misuse this authority. But that’s a much larger problem, and if one is going to crack down on this, they need to have a laser focus, be patient, and have a solid plan to counter any resistance. And Trump has none of that.

 

[King Arts]

Hmm, if it sticks, I'd say it falls under the jurisdiction of the JAG corp. That means summery executions are fair game when they really fuck up outside US soil.

Actually no the CIA are civilians they don’t fall under UCMJ. Military intelligence agencies would. But no congress and the president are in charge of foreign affairs. Congress would have to set up some committee or court to handle intelligence agencies doing morally wrong things outside the US.

 

[StormEagle]

Well, the real problem isn’t any component of the CIA so much as it is reining in the leadership. Like when Clapper (or was it Brennan?) was director and ordered CIA personnel to hack into the Intelligence Committee’s computers on Capitol Hill to see what incriminating evidence they had. The CIA’s inspector general investigated and recommended disciplinary action (if not outright termination), but the then-deputy director (Avril Haines, the current DNI) overruled the IG and nothing happened.

Giving the agencies’ IG offices more teeth would be the answer, not to mention actually enforcing the law against high-ranking officials consistently would be the real remedy. Most of the really egregious stuff comes at the direction of the White House or at least with its tacit approval (something the Church and Pike Committees found when this stuff was going on 50 years ago). It isn’t the agencies that are the problem, it’s a couple of people who need to be made examples of.


I keep telling people we’re just reliving the 1970s but nobody believes me…

Church Committee - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The biggest irony is that a lot of what the Committee found is that the White House (under both parties) was letting it happen. The tensions are still there, but it comes down to really needing to, again, hold the president and his senior people accountable (hence why the House’s Weaponization of the Federal Government is important). Problem is it’ll only last until the next time the Democrats take over.

And as far as states go? They don’t have the constitutional authority to do what you’re talking about (since it very explicitly puts the responsibility for the national defense under the purview of the federal government). And the Constitution was designed specifically to rein the states in so they didn’t try setting their own foreign or trade policies and undermine the Union. Nor do they actually have the capability to do what you’re talking about. Or…


Oh, state agencies are by far more corrupt than the feds.

Seriously, @StormEagle , you want Gavin Newsom, or Phil Murphy, or J.B. Pritzker calling the shots and having the power to spy on people? Yeah that will totally end well for the country…they’ll be waging covert wars against other states and individuals who disagree with them.


(Points at the Articles of Confederation and Shays’ Rebellion). Now imagine that happening even more often.

Now, on the other hand, undoing the worst excesses of the New Deal and Woodrow Wilson’s stunts before him, as well as making sure executive branch leadership is held accountable, is doable. The problem is you need to get a Senate that isn’t directly elected by people, because it needs to put the interests of the states ahead of political factions in the country. That means abolishing the 17th Amendment, but it’s long outlived any usefulness it once had.


It’s not a contest of any sorts; prior to Pearl Harbor we had the FBI, but for foreign intelligence we were mainly reliant upon the Office of Naval Intelligence (the Army wasn’t really big enough to matter before then). We didn’t have a dedicated foreign intelligence service, and so when Pearl Harbor hit we were really behind the 8-ball. That was why the CIA was formed in the first place (the other IC agencies came into being for specialized purposes akin to Army or Naval Intelligence). What should have happened after 9/11 was the CIA being given primacy to coordinate Intelligence matters, but instead we got another layer of bureaucracy.


To be fair, the probable solution with the FBI is just splitting off the Intelligence Branch and creating something akin to MI5 in Britain (under suitable accountability of course); prior to 2009, the FBI’s reputation as a law enforcement agency was pretty good -and indeed, the field personnel generally are very, very ashamed of the leadership in Washington. So splitting off the Intelligence function and having it function as a law enforcement agency again would probably be a better move (disclaimer: When this was under debate in the mid-2000s, I disagreed with it, figuring the FBI’s ethos would be enough to keep its worst impulses in check. I was wrong).

And yes, people love to bitch about Ruby Ridge and Waco, but those clusterfucks weren’t the FBI’s fault: They were ATF fuckups that Clinton and Janet Reno ordered the FBI to clean up. With Ruby Ridge, even Danny Coulson (the head of counterterrorism at the FBI and the founder of the Hostage Rescue Team) thought the planning for the arrest operation was absolute shit and was vehemently against it.

With Waco, Reno and especially Jamie Gorelick (remember her?) were pushing Clinton to order a raid because of the TV coverage and over budgetary concerns. Which wasn’t helped by the differences in philosophy and approach between HRT operators and the FBI negotiators that kept sending mixed signals.

But again, that wasn’t due to the FBI doing it on their own hook; it was terrible direction from the President and Attorney General (sound familiar?)


First of all, that is a clear violation of the Constitution, because SCOTUS has no authority over the executive branch. Not to mention, we have a system of accountability in place, called the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. The solution is to require them to do their fucking jobs. Again, that was what came out of the Church and Pike Committees; it’s just that Congress has forgotten that it’s more than just a bunch of social media influencers.

Second of all, putting a bunch of lawyers with zero understanding of how espionage works in charge of having to vet even the acquisition of new computers or office space, or whether we can send any spy satellites over North Korea, is a colossal waste of everyone’s time and resources, especially in situations where you may need a decision in minutes.


The fundamental problem of intelligence agencies is that there is an inherent tension between an open democracy and the secretive world of espionage that is difficult to reconcile at the best of times.

Congress is supposed to exercise effective oversight, but many of them don’t, and so we are stuck with the current mess. And as far as “replacing Kissinger’s cronies” goes, that did happen; it was just that, as an overreaction to the abuses of yesteryear, too many restrictions were placed on intelligence operations over legal and moral concerns, which meant that 9/11 was able to occur. Which set off a repeat of the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, which was allowed to grow and result in the messes of the 1970s.

And to get back on the actual topic of this thread…it’s why I have zero faith in Trump actually doing anything. He’s only interested in using it against anyone he considers an enemy, rather than wholesale reform so that nobody can misuse this authority. But that’s a much larger problem, and if one is going to crack down on this, they need to have a laser focus, be patient, and have a solid plan to counter any resistance. And Trump has none of that.

I’m to lazy to edit this down to the part where you’re addressing me.

As far as the intelligence agencies go, I think you’re misreading what I’m advocating for. Being fair, I phrased what I wanted done somewhat confusingly.

I want the intelligence agencies investigated, purged of wrong doers, and for their duties to the constitution and, more importantly, their fellow citizens to be spelt out explicitly.

No more wiggle room for them to spy on and abuse the American citizen.

I then want the agencies looked at with a severe eye to see if they’re actually necessary or just a government spending program that’s used to control and spy on its own citizens. Any unnecessary organizations can have their actually important duties condensed down to a singular or two glowie orgs.

The CIA I want abolished completely and most of their members likely in prison. They can be replaced by an organization with a firmer leash and with a firm handed warning that bringing their shit domestic would be a dangerous misstep.

The federal law enforcement is largely a separate issue of abuse from the intel community.

The FBI etc, the actual domestic law enforcement arm of the federal government, I want busted down to state level organizations. The states can then decide what they do with that within their own borders.

State agencies also, tend to be, easier to hold responsible for their misdeeds than the monolithic federal government. It’s less of an uphill battle anyways.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

The default punishment for IC members should be life imprisonment in a former blacksite for any malfeasance period.

I dont care if it's minor corruption or wide spread treason. Once you serve as a glowie you should basically forfeit your civil liberties as a sacrifice on the alter of patriotism to prove your loyalty to the nation.

No infraction you can commit wouldn't undermine the Republic anyway so the default should be life and escalate it from there.

Edit- also any citizen should be able to make this accusation at anytime and it should be taken seriously.

Our bureaucrats keep babbling about democracy this and that. Aight, in Ancient Greece it was ludicrously easy to charge a leader with treason.

Make it so again, but for the bureaucratic and bioluminescent classes.

 

[strunkenwhite]

The default punishment for IC members should be life imprisonment in a former blacksite for any malfeasance period.

I dont care if it's minor corruption or wide spread treason.

The problem with jumping straight to extreme penalties is it will just encourage people to brush things under the rug that "aren't that bad", speedrunning the next cycle of corruption.

 

[Zachowon]

That also means small infractions that are accidental gets one out away, so things will never be reported

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

The problem with jumping straight to extreme penalties is it will just encourage people to brush things under the rug that "aren't that bad", speedrunning the next cycle of corruption.

They do that no matter what.

I want the people who serve American citizens to be afraid of the very people they serve. To wake up every day wondering why they're hated and seen as traitors.

Because they practically crippled the US and drove it to the point of collapse when they were celebrated as heroes.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

That also means small infractions that are accidental gets one out away, so things will never be reported

That's why you allow random citizens to levy treason charges against Feds and Glowies on the spot which then have to be promptly investigated no matter what.

Keep 'em honest by making sure they never know when it'll be their ass on review.

 

[Airedale260]

I’m to lazy to edit this down to the part where you’re addressing me.

As far as the intelligence agencies go, I think you’re misreading what I’m advocating for. Being fair, I phrased what I wanted done somewhat confusingly.

I want the intelligence agencies investigated, purged of wrong doers, and for their duties to the constitution and, more importantly, their fellow citizens to be spelt out explicitly.

No more wiggle room for them to spy on and abuse the American citizen.

I then want the agencies looked at with a severe eye to see if they’re actually necessary or just a government spending program that’s used to control and spy on its own citizens. Any unnecessary organizations can have their actually important duties condensed down to a singular or two glowie orgs.

The CIA I want abolished completely and most of their members likely in prison. They can be replaced by an organization with a firmer leash and with a firm handed warning that bringing their shit domestic would be a dangerous misstep.

The federal law enforcement is largely a separate issue of abuse from the intel community.

The FBI etc, the actual domestic law enforcement arm of the federal government, I want busted down to state level organizations. The states can then decide what they do with that within their own borders.

State agencies also, tend to be, easier to hold responsible for their misdeeds than the monolithic federal government. It’s less of an uphill battle anyways.

No, I understood what you were saying; my argument is that, unfortunately, a lot of what you’re saying is incorrect.

First off, I should clarify that I live in the Soviet Socialist Republic of New Jersey, so public corruption is something with which I am all too familiar. I had hoped that with the election of Chris Christie, things would change, but being in my 20s and naive in many ways I quickly learned otherwise.

As it happens, I was blessed to work alongside and for several retired NJ state troopers -some of whom were very senior indeed. And Christie had been a hard-charging U.S. attorney who’d been on an anti-corruption crusade, but when he took office, his lieutenant governor, Kim Guadango, whose prior job was director of the Division of Criminal Justice (basically, New Jersey’s equivalent of the FBI -yes, we also have the NJSP and they have full statewide law enforcement powers as well, but they’re more or less their own thing; it’s weird). And when she became lieutenant governor, well, suddenly a LOT of public corruption investigations (including one involving her husband) were closed without any prosecutions or other actions taken. And according to my trooper friends, this was pretty much BAU (business as usual).

Sadly, this is not unique to New Jersey; politics at the state level, in all states, and especially the civil service, are in fact much MORE political than at the federal level and far LESS accountable to the public. So any claims of the states being less corrupt? Please. It just doesn’t get reported on outside of local jurisdictions.

As far as federal law enforcement? They only actually get involved when you have multistate investigations (criminals are actually generally not stupid, so when it comes to the big networks, the feds HAVE to get involved because otherwise it would be a logistical nightmare (trying to charge in 29 different states AND occasionally in foreign countries? That’s where federal law enforcement gets involved. They don’t do the pedestrian shit).

As far as the CIA goes…again, the Agency exists because we learned the hard way why we need it. In terms of actual illegal shit? That’s the leadership, and again goes to my point about needing to hold THEM accountable. The rank and file generally just do what they’re told, because they have internal reporting mechanisms to the OIG and Congress -and every federal employee is given a very thorough briefing when they first come on board on What To Do when you run into a problem -the issue is that, if Congress and the president and his immediate subordinates are all in on it, there is sweet fuck all you can actually do. Which, again, goes to my whole point about the problem not being the CIA itself; the problem is the LEADERSHIP and ACTUALLY EXERCISING EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT.

 

[DarthOne]

You would be surprised how little a change of instruments changes a tune.

A stroke of the brush does not guarantee art from the bristles.

 

[Cherico]

A stroke of the brush does not guarantee art from the bristles.

Please teach that lesson to art schools because modern art is trash.

 

[Airedale260]

An effort needs only be put in when it's worth putting in. Anything dealing with Trump or the right needs none at all.

Not for nothing, but if you genuinely want to understand other people and have them (us) listen to your views with a bit more respect, maybe show some (even if you’re privately wondering about the sanity of some of us)?

Otherwise you just come off as a caricature yourself, and nobody learns anything new.

Rome didn't have nukes, didn't have a space program, didn't have an entire continent effectively to themselves, didn't have global instantaneous comms, global persistent recon assets, didn't have Hollywood/mass media marketing across the whole damn world (Roman orators inside Rome itself getting paid for speaking is not the same as New York Times or Washington Post having global reach and impact), and didn't have maps without 'here be dragons' on them at the edges.

The idea the US is some copy of Rome or of some past empire/nation, and that as such it's history and future fate can be easily predicted by mapping past events onto the current time (events thousands of years remove, I might add) is...it's foolishness born of a misunderstanding of how very, very different the world and society is now.

Trying to equate the US to Rome is a shortcut that makes people feel 'historically educated and insightful' among certain groups, and let's Euro's try to pretend the US is nothing new and they know what it's fate will be.

Even comparing the US to Spain before it's civil war is less than useful, except in comparing relative tech advancements in the decades since.

Trying to just map ancient European history on the current US society, and analyze it that way, is judging the quality and future of a potato plant based on how an apple tree is doing and has done in the past.

Edit: Illusions about what the US is, like the illusions about us being a new Rome, and what the US can be compared to do to that, are part of why the elite hate Trump so much and are doing this; he caused them to drop the mask, and now they cannot go back to boiling the frogs.

Yeah, we aren’t Rome 2.0 or…whatever.0. Some similarities, maybe (not being a monarchy, obviously, and not under the thumb of political dynasties (which obviously exist, but don’t come anywhere close to dominating the political landscape that Roman families did).

Nor are we dealing with a military more loyal to a single individual than to the Constitution, which is also huge, and means no single person can do what Marius, Sulla or Caesar did.

Someone also mentioned Weimar a while back, but we aren’t Weimar, either. Nobody had any real loyalty to the Weimar government, the military was constantly undermining what democratic institutions did exist, in a country that didn’t have the robust traditions we do.

Now, we *do* have some similarities with another European government of the time, the Third French Republic (loss of confidence in national institutions in general due to multiple scandals), loss of confidence in the military and its leadership especially, obsession with radical elements of the left and right, a public that is at best apathetic due to the incompetents (who may or may not be ludicrously corrupt) and at worst admiring of new rising powers with anti democratic tendencies (the USSR or Nazi Germany), and a senile president.

That said, we aren’t at risk of being conquered by a hostile power (nuked or covert undermining yes, but that’s easier to deal with than outright occupation), we are not dealing with chronic parliamentary instability resulting in new elections every six months, and we aren’t dependent upon another power for our protection.

Now, as it so happens, after World War II, the Fourth Republic was formed, but was plagued by many of the same problems that Republic 3.0 had.

Rather than overthrow it, a Fifth Republic was formed (amending/replacing the constitution, like we did with the Articles of Confederation), and they’re still plugging along (though with their own difficulties to be sure). And when forces DID try to resist reform and overthrow the government, they were crushed.

So in light of all this, I’m not too worried. A bit, sure, but I think what’s happening is that we are the end of another cycle in governance within the U.S., with reform shortly on the way as we have to adapt to new realities (since the structure of the current civil service dates from the 1940s). And our politics go through changes around every 50 years, so we are at the end/beginning of both new cycles for the first time since the country was founded.

 

[King Krávoka]

The only pattern of history is that humans are pricks and when a people view a social structure as corrupt they destroy it or hit the reset button the form of governanceas follows may vary.

Optimistic much?!

 

[Megadeath]

So, the audio record released Tuesday certainly seems like pretty damning evidence against trump. I suppose it's not a new development since the relevant details were already in the indictment, but still interesting having trump outright state that:

1. He still has the documents after they were all claimed to be returned in compliance with the earlier subpoena.
2. The document is still classified.
3. It's very much not the kind of thing you could call personal records.

 

[Rocinante]

So, the audio record released Tuesday certainly seems like pretty damning evidence against trump. I suppose it's not a new development since the relevant details were already in the indictment, but still interesting having trump outright state that:

1. He still has the documents after they were all claimed to be returned in compliance with the earlier subpoena.
2. The document is still classified.
3. It's very much not the kind of thing you could call personal records.

And the answer you're going to get from Trump supporters, is that as a victim of a witch hunt, who is in no way going To be treated fairly, holding on to some stuff that you might be able to hold over someone's head isn't a terrible tactic.

They aren't wrong, either.

 

[Zachowon]

Both sides are right in this case