Trump Investigations Thread

It would probably be both the judicial and legislative.
Proper checks and balances to ensure such a powerful thing is kept from getting out
Maybe this will be what's found, but this isn't the case yet as we've yet to see a former president prosecuted for anything other than a drunk and disorderly. We are entirely in unprecedented territory here where the outcome of this case either reaffirms the status quo or upends the presidency and subjugates it to the other branches. If congress can criminalize how the president does this thing, what else are they allowed to pick and choose? This isn't the usual blocking of some presidential action, this is a criminal case.
 
because the president can declassify things without a memo and the closest thing to a prosecution this had was good ol Bill Clinton keeping some classified documents in his sock drawer after he left office. strangely he did not get the book thrown at him like this. it is a mystery as to why. nobody is going to be able to figure out this question of the ages.

not kidding here. this is really shaky ground for prosecution. we have never convicted a president for this in the past. if we start? that is gonna be wild when it comes to how easily the legislature will be able to tie up constitutional powers away from the president. Congress could maybe sign a law that outlines a 7000 step process for a presidential pardon. wouldn't even need an amendment if we take how they are reading the law.
Sure, I'm not arguing against the argument that Trump could declassify it all by waving his hand over it, or just by taking it home, or that if he did anything that would be illegal if it wasn't declassified we are to assume that he declassified it prior to committing that act.

However, there was a claim that he declassified it with a memo and that the memo was evidence of declassification. The memo, as far as I know, has never been made public and I haven't heard any claim that Trump has a copy of it in his possession ... unlike the other stuff. It would be extremely convenient for his legal defense if it could be tracked down.
 
Sure, I'm not arguing against the argument that Trump could declassify it all by waving his hand over it, or just by taking it home, or that if he did anything that would be illegal if it wasn't declassified we are to assume that he declassified it prior to committing that act.

However, there was a claim that he declassified it with a memo and that the memo was evidence of declassification. The memo, as far as I know, has never been made public and I haven't heard any claim that Trump has a copy of it in his possession ... unlike the other stuff. It would be extremely convenient for his legal defense if it could be tracked down.
I expect the memo is in the National Archives, or was, before becoming part of an 'official investigation'.

Probably at FBI headquarters now, or Merrick Garland's office.
 
I don't disagree here on the why, but the question remains on whose authority is the president restricted. The executive can't restrict the president because the president *is* the executive. The legislative doing so sparks a constitutional crisis if pressed, as the president can argue this is a breach of separation of powers.

Yes, but Congress also has power over national security matters. Such power does not rest solely with the Executive.

The REAL issue at hand is that everything related to classification is... theoretical? The Constitution doesn't say anything about classification of information because... it wasn't a thing when the Constitution was written.

The power is... implied by Article II designating the President as Commander in Chief, with a responsibility for national security.

Any and all laws/regulations otherwise specifically regarding classification of information are through legislation or executive orders.

An interesting precedent i've found now, directly relevant to this is New York Times vs. CIA... Federal Appeals court ruled that "Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures", after Trump had shared information about operations in Syria and the New York Times filed an FOIA request for the information. The CIA denied them access due to the materials being classified... the court sided with the CIA, as there was no process followed, thus the information was never declassified.

It should be noted too that this question will almost certainly NOT be answered here. The Presidents ability to declassify information has never been directly challenged in court... the closest was NY Times vs. CIA, and ALMOST the Scooter Libby trial. BUT... Trump's ability to declassify information is not being challenged. What *IS* being challenged is *IF* Trump declassified some of the material, among other things.

Nobody is saying Trump could not declassify the information. The argument is that he did not. It *MAY* end up getting the SCOTUS with the question of what do we believe? If there was no record of a President declassifying something, but after he is no longer the President, he says that he did while he was still POTUS... does that count?

Without making this a Red vs. Blue political question, as an American I want to say... no? Or at the very least, that's not how it should be? I think most of us agree that Presidential power should not go completely unchecked? At the absolute minimum, the "process" for the President to declassify something should include some kind of documentation in order to prove that the information was actually declassified. I don't think it's too much to ask, or violating separation of powers to require the President to have a staffer call up the National Archives and say "X document is now declassified".

To go more political... do I think Trump needs to go to jail for having classified documents? No. Do I believe that he declassified them? Also no. What really needs to come of this is getting it to the SCOTUS for them to give a hard ruling on it. This is an issue that shouldn't be left floating in the air as a "nobody actually knows because there's no actual law"

I expect the memo is in the National Archives, or was, before becoming part of an 'official investigation'.

Probably at FBI headquarters now, or Merrick Garland's office.

By the limited accounts, if there was any such memo, it was not a physical document.

The "memo" was a "standing order" that was supposedly said by Trump, at some point, declassifying... non-specific things. As it seems to be unfolding is when something pops up, Trump says "I declassified that", with nothing to actually cooperate it.
 
Trump's latest defense strategy appears to be based on quoting "How The Grinch Stole Christmas"?
Seriously its actually in the papers they filed in court.
image.png

There are no words in Elvish, Entish or the Tongues of Men to describe this.
I know he's scraping the barrel here, but where did he find these lawyers?

(Look if he does not want to be mocked he should stop doing things for which he can be so easily mocked)
 
Trump's latest defense strategy appears to be based on quoting "How The Grinch Stole Christmas"?
Seriously its actually in the papers they filed in court.
image.png

There are no words in Elvish, Entish or the Tongues of Men to describe this.
I know he's scraping the barrel here, but where did he find these lawyers?

(Look if he does not want to be mocked he should stop doing things for which he can be so easily mocked)
I think it's pretty great!


I mean...lawyers with senses of humor in their work!
 
Trump's latest defense strategy appears to be based on quoting "How The Grinch Stole Christmas"?
Seriously its actually in the papers they filed in court.
image.png

There are no words in Elvish, Entish or the Tongues of Men to describe this.
I know he's scraping the barrel here, but where did he find these lawyers?

(Look if he does not want to be mocked he should stop doing things for which he can be so easily mocked)

I think it's pretty great!


I mean...lawyers with senses of humor in their work!

Also it is bait for the reporters and a way for people to start talking about what’s going on again. It’s a means to draw attention.
 
Ehhh I feel like Trump's going to lose his legal cases no matter what since he's going up against very biased Judges/Courts.

Rather, he's probably going to lose his legal cases because he's just so incredibly, obviously guilty with very little in the way of any reasonable defense to his actions.

It's sad that the "Law and Order" President and his followers see... applying law and order as "biased". This is exactly what you wanted. You wanted accountability. You wanted to "drain the swamp". You wanted to go after corruption. You got exactly what you wanted!
 
Rather, he's probably going to lose his legal cases because he's just so incredibly, obviously guilty with very little in the way of any reasonable defense to his actions.

It's sad that the "Law and Order" President and his followers see... applying law and order as "biased". This is exactly what you wanted. You wanted accountability. You wanted to "drain the swamp". You wanted to go after corruption. You got exactly what you wanted!
No, no we didn't. Not even close. Because no one, absolutely no one else is being held accountable.
That's not even in the same state as 'close'.
 
Rather, he's probably going to lose his legal cases because he's just so incredibly, obviously guilty with very little in the way of any reasonable defense to his actions.

It's sad that the "Law and Order" President and his followers see... applying law and order as "biased". This is exactly what you wanted. You wanted accountability. You wanted to "drain the swamp". You wanted to go after corruption. You got exactly what you wanted!
Except no, we didn't.

Given how long Trump has been active in the business world, I'm pretty sure there's at least some dirty dealing somewhere that he could and should reasonably be held accountable for, but that's not what they're trying to pin him for.

They're trying to pin him for taking records home, like every other President did. Even worse, Biden did the same thing as a Vice President, including things he had no authority to declassify at that time.

They investigated him for two years based on a dossier that the DoJ knew was fabricated as opposition research, sabotaging his administration right out of the gate, and transparently trying to create a process crime to pin on him.

They impeached him for having a phone call with Zelensky after the man was first elected.

They impeached him again using manipulated recordings and lies when he was already on his way out of office in January 2020.

They're trying to pin him in court for 'fraud' over a property valuation to back a loan, for a loan that was fully paid off, and that the bank who lent him the money agreed on the evaluation of.


At the same time, the DoJ said Hillary 'committed crimes, but we're not persecuting her,' they have actively impaired the investigation into Hunter Biden's crooked politics, the fact that Joe has been using his family to funnel money to himself by peddling power and influence is out in the open, both about Ukraine and about China.

Yet these people are not getting indicted, the Dems are not trying to impeach them, and the leftist-controlled media barely mentions such things.


This is not 'going after corruption,' this is a partisan witch-hunt. The political left has been burning tens of millions of taxpayer dollars trying to go after their political opposition in the form of Trump, since before he even took office.

If they were going after Trump and Biden, there'd be at least a fig leaf it's about corruption rather than partisanship, but there isn't even that.

Here is an article that addresses the sheer magnitude to which the hypocrisy and weaponization of government is going on:
 
No, no we didn't. Not even close. Because no one, absolutely no one else is being held accountable.
That's not even in the same state as 'close'.

So if one person gets away with something, everyone needs to get away with it.

And that's not true at all. Trump is being held accountable. So are Rudy Giuliani, Tom Barrack, Elliot Brody, Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, George Nader, George Papadaopolous, Roger Stone, Allen Weisellberg. Unrelated to Trump, George Santos has been removed from Congress. Hunter Biden has charges. Biden is having an impeachment review for some reason.

There's quite a bit of accountability going on.

Given how long Trump has been active in the business world, I'm pretty sure there's at least some dirty dealing somewhere that he could and should reasonably be held accountable for, but that's not what they're trying to pin him for.

That's exactly what the New York trial is about.
 
Yahyah it's pretty much establishing a precedent, and the Courts call it Case Law which is used like for a huge amount of cases in American.
"But they got away with it, why can't I? This is so unfair." didn't work when I was a kid when I got caught misbehaving by my parents or grandmothers and it does not work in a court of law.
 
Yes, that is in fact how it works. If someone is investigated, it is found that the crime did occur, and the prosecutors did not prosecute, that law is effectively voided.

One is innocent until proven guilty. If they were no proven guilty by a jury of their peers, the accused did not commit that crime in the eyes of the law.

If prosecutors don't prosecute, it is assumed there is not enough evidence to warrant a trial.

As it stands now, going by this logic and the logic of this thread in general... Hillary Clinton used a private email server to pass classified information through. She was not prosecuted. Therefore, it is now legal to pass classified information through a private email server...

Right?
 
"But they got away with it, why can't I? This is so unfair." didn't work when I was a kid when I got caught misbehaving by my parents or grandmothers and it does not work in a court of law.
Well it kinda does work that
Snip-it_1702666857532.jpg


But it's less this guy murdered someone so I should kill anyone I want and more. This person killed someone in self defense, I used self defense so I should not have to go to jail just like they didn't.
 
"But they got away with it, why can't I? This is so unfair." didn't work when I was a kid when I got caught misbehaving by my parents or grandmothers and it does not work in a court of law.
Now I didn't analyze all the facts (I may be incorrect so be free to correct the facts) but I'm pretty sure in a nutshell Hillary Broke some rules regarding confidential documents and failed at covering up then got away with no serious punishment.

Trump more or less did the same thing and because of the previous precedent more or less be similar to what Hillary did he would get off as well or at least with a slap of the wrist.


That's literally what case law is, similar facts to similar instances to allow similar legal outcomes. Context is the most important factor though
 
Well it kinda does work that
Snip-it_1702666857532.jpg


But it's less this guy murdered someone so I should kill anyone I want and more. This person killed someone in self defense, I used self defense so I should not have to go to jail just like they didn't.
wrong image?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top