Author Topic: Trump looses again  (Read 26341 times)

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #250 on: August 15, 2022, 05:02:02 PM »
Quote
BTW; any documents marked as "Classified" that are no longer classified no longer fall under any document-handling rules and regulations...
We would need to actually see some evidence that they were in fact declassified during his term, of course.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #251 on: August 15, 2022, 05:21:03 PM »
Quote
BTW; any documents marked as "Classified" that are no longer classified no longer fall under any document-handling rules and regulation...

You do realize that the reason classified documents are marked as "CLASSIFIED" on every single page is that so they can be easily identified as classified documents to anyone who sees them.  This helps protect the documents themselves, and those who may view them, since everyone knows whether they are classified or not at just a glance.

Which is why, when a document is declassified, the classification cover page is removed and the classification is blacked-out on the header or footer of each page.  Again, so that everyone knows it is no-longer classified.

Reports that I have read say that the documents taken from Mar-a-Lago still had the classifications on the pages.  Which means everyone has to assume those documents are still classified.

So, no, they do still fall under document-handling rules and regulations, so long as they have the classifications on the pages.  Otherwise the rules are useless.  Anyone could argue, "Oh, I was told they were declassified.  How should I have known they were still classified?" ;)

Only someone as ignorant and arrogant as Trump wouldn't understand this.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #252 on: August 15, 2022, 06:39:09 PM »
And still no comment from Wm about the judgement needed to just declassify documents because he wants to take them to the Residence and not keep them in the Oval Office.

Aren't Standing Orders written down somewhere? So that there is a record of it?  Any proof of this Standing Order?

And Wm there is a process, fairly detailed and time consuming to declassify documents. It is not done just by the President saying so.  He can order it done, but there is a process. There is no evidence that the process was followed.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #253 on: August 15, 2022, 09:28:05 PM »
...Which is why, when a document is declassified, the classification cover page is removed and the classification is blacked-out on the header or footer of each page.  Again, so that everyone knows it is no-longer classified.

Reports that I have read say that the documents taken from Mar-a-Lago still had the classifications on the pages.  Which means everyone has to assume those documents are still classified.

So, no, they do still fall under document-handling rules and regulations, so long as they have the classifications on the pages.  Otherwise the rules are useless.  Anyone could argue, "Oh, I was told they were declassified.  How should I have known they were still classified?" ;)

Only someone as ignorant and arrogant as Trump wouldn't understand this.

Wrong. Policy is not law. If NARA librarians want to keep old copies of unclassified documents for whatever reasons, they can cross out "C's" or black them out to their hearts content. Being unclassified means they are no longer under the auspices of librarians. They are now sheets of paper with historical roots. Only a political apologist would miss that and pretend that they merit some divine intervention.

You guys love to call Trump ignorant and arrogant, but you always miss the mark. A President holds the supreme power of Classification. There are no regulations that can trump his prerogatives. If a President holds something to be Classified or deClassified, then it is whatever he wants it to be. There are no rules to delimit his actions. He doesn't need to prove it to anyone. Too bad if some Seventh-floor Fed wants to appear Godlike - it won't fly - and getting one's nose bent out of shape is good for them. Makes them remembwer who is really in charge. (Which is something this DOJ needed to learn.) Making up sacred NARA isms that don't exist is pitiful. I understand that in the Swamp - many bureaucrats believe their daily efforts are greater than the Constitution, but they aren't.

Face it. Since Trump came down the golden escalator, the old Clintonites in the upper realms of the DOJ did everything they could do to hinder his authority. He performed better than any President in history. Think how great the country could have become if these seditionists had worked with him instead of against him.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #254 on: August 15, 2022, 09:46:20 PM »
Are you saying, William, that former President Clinton could declare that all those documents Trump stole are definitely classified? That all he would need to do is declare that he had decided, back when he was president, that any document brought to Florida by a presidential administration in the next century would be automatically Top Secret? And that he just never bothered to tell anyone until now?

Also, this -- "Being unclassified means they are no longer under the auspices of librarians." -- is manifestly false. Federal documents, even when declassified, are almost always under the auspices of librarians.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2022, 09:50:56 PM by Tom »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #255 on: August 15, 2022, 10:05:37 PM »
Are you saying, William, that former President Clinton could declare that all those documents Trump stole are definitely classified? That all he would need to do is declare that he had decided, back when he was president, that any document brought to Florida by a presidential administration in the next century would be automatically Top Secret? And that he just never bothered to tell anyone until now?

Of course not. You should cut back on your sarcasm. The documents came with him after they were declassified. OTOH; Hillary had no power of declassification when she acid-washed hard drives and destroyed phones with a hammer over items that were subpoenaed.

Legislators demanded the release of the affidavit, which would include details like why the warrant was sought in the first place.

There are major judicial rights embedded in the body of the Constitution - not in any Amendments. They were considered too important to not be in the body of the Constitution. These concepts include Habeus Corpus, The right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, and the right to cross-examine witnesses, and to call witnesses to support their case  The Founders did not want to endure the "assumed guilty" courts of England and demanded all plaintiffs had the right to address their accusers - no star chambers. These embedded directions in the Constitution trumps Garland's wish to hide the affidavit that sparked the Mar-A-Lago raid, and calls the entire J6 Committee hearings in violation.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #256 on: August 15, 2022, 10:09:35 PM »
Quote
The documents came with him after they were declassified.
And your evidence that they were declassified is...?


(As a side note, your reference to "acid washing" really doesn't help you look like you know what you're talking about. BleachBit is not in fact any sort of physical, chemical treatment. Hannity just misunderstood/erroneously speculated, Trump repeated it, and the right-wing punditosphere has kept that particular misunderstanding going for years.)
« Last Edit: August 15, 2022, 10:12:38 PM by Tom »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #257 on: August 15, 2022, 10:20:09 PM »
Fun fact. It doesn't matter if the documents were declassified or not.

Quote
As such, the classification system exists in parallel to separate criminal penalties Congress has imposed to protect security secrets.

For example, the Espionage Act of 1917 — one of the laws cited in the search warrant — protects secrets that it defines as defense-related information that could harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary. It makes no reference to classification status, and prosecutors in an Espionage Act case do not need to prove that anything was deemed classified.

A rare exception, in which Congress has tied a law to the classification system, is Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which makes the unauthorized retention or removal of classified material a crime. But that was not one of the laws that was listed in the search warrant as a focus of the investigation.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #258 on: August 16, 2022, 12:20:41 AM »
...your reference to "acid washing" really doesn't help you look like you know what you're talking about. BleachBit is not in fact any sort of physical, chemical treatment. Hannity just misunderstood/erroneously speculated, Trump repeated it, and the right-wing punditosphere has kept that particular misunderstanding going for years.)

Once again a day late and a dollar short. The Bleach bit analogy has been familiarly referred to as acid-washing since Hillary did it. Acting as if using a familiarized term makes Hillary into a saint doesn't work. Remember how she acted ignorant and said something like, "Oh, you mean like washing it with soap and water?"

Fun fact. It doesn't matter if the documents were declassified or not.

Quote
As such, the classification system exists in parallel to separate criminal penalties Congress has imposed to protect security secrets.

For example, the Espionage Act of 1917 — one of the laws cited in the search warrant — protects secrets that it defines as defense-related information that could harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary. It makes no reference to classification status, and prosecutors in an Espionage Act case do not need to prove that anything was deemed classified.

A rare exception, in which Congress has tied a law to the classification system, is Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which makes the unauthorized retention or removal of classified material a crime. But that was not one of the laws that was listed in the search warrant as a focus of the investigation.

Alam Dershowitz's often cited the Espionage Act of 1917 as the second most stupid act ever written. Interesting we must resort to it here. The info supposedly cited on the warrant was 18 months old. Please explain why the existing invitation for any requests at all from Trump's attorneys was ignored (they were always immediately provided) yet so time-sensitive to inspire a raid of three dozen FBI SWAT-armored agents?

It is now known that Hillary may have been behind the raid:

Paul Sperry reports (Former D.C. bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily, Hoover Institution media fellow, author of several books, including bestseller INFILTRATION”): "Sources say Hillary Clinton operatives have been secretly working with Archives officials and the Justice Department for several months and are behind the push for the investigation of Trump as “revenge” for Clinton being investigated for mishandling classified materials in her Emailgate scandal."

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #259 on: August 16, 2022, 02:34:48 AM »
I heard on the radio that the guy who approved the warrant had previously recused himself in a Trump related case because of how much he has publicly expressed his hatred of the man. It was alleged that the DOJ went shopping for a guy to approve their warrant because they knew an honest judge wouldn't do it, and why this guy didn't recuse himself again is also a wonder.

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #260 on: August 16, 2022, 05:11:31 AM »
This article by the extremely radical left leaning  WSJ appears to detail the facts on Judge Reinhart.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-who-approved-trump-search-warrant-was-in-role-by-chance-11660488027


cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #261 on: August 16, 2022, 07:06:57 AM »
Is it far fetched to wonder if the timing of the warrant request could have taken into account that the other judge would be unavailable and this one would be the pinch hitter?


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11107969/Trumps-attorney-wants-know-Judge-Reinhart-recused-Clinton-lawsuit.html

So that's a good question. Why did he recuse himself in the other case but figures he's unbiased enough to unleash this clown circus against Trump now? And the bigger question is would any judge they had taken this warrant request to have improved it? Or in other words, are there any judges would would have said no? I suppose we'll never know the answer to that for sure, but if the answer isn't that any and every judge would have approved it the same was this guy did, then that's a problem.


msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #262 on: August 16, 2022, 07:41:21 AM »
Wm
Where does this unfettered authority come from?  Not the Constitution since the whole system was not put into place until at least the second half of the 20th century. So it was done by regulation, right?  I find it hard to believe that the President can, at a whim, do what ever he wants with sensitive information, with no oversite what so ever.

But still no comment from you on the judgement to declassify any document just because he took it to the Residence.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #263 on: August 16, 2022, 07:43:42 AM »
Cherry

So you heard on the radio? Which program?  Info Wars? The War Room? Some local radio show with no vetting?

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #264 on: August 16, 2022, 08:35:26 AM »
Quote
Is it far fetched to wonder if the timing of the warrant request could have taken into account that the other judge would be unavailable and this one would be the pinch hitter?


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11107969/Trumps-attorney-wants-know-Judge-Reinhart-recused-Clinton-lawsuit.html

So that's a good question. Why did he recuse himself in the other case but figures he's unbiased enough to unleash this clown circus against Trump now? And the bigger question is would any judge they had taken this warrant request to have improved it? Or in other words, are there any judges would would have said no? I suppose we'll never know the answer to that for sure, but if the answer isn't that any and every judge would have approved it the same was this guy did, then that's a problem.

I will not say it is outside of the realm of possibility.  The article states that if there is compelling evidence of a crime the judge has no choice but to provide the warrant.  Since neither of us know the specific information that was provided the judge and since documents Trump had no right to have were found (classified or unclassified is irrelevant) it seems to me that the judge made a valid call.  His feelings for Trump are not relevant and the fact that he was ethical or at least cognizant of the possible backlash if he did not recuse himself in the previous case as favorable.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #265 on: August 16, 2022, 08:40:24 AM »
Quote
Judge Reinhart recused himself from that case without citing a reason, two months after another magistrate, Ryon McCabe, also recused himself without citing why.

So we don't know if he had a problem with Trump, someone else involved, or the subject matter. The nameless radio show clearly said something that the judge didn't, that it was because of bias against Trump. Maybe he was just trying to avoid death threats from Trumpians who have no problem attacking judges and FBI agents when they get angry enough.

Quote
Far-right extremists on pro-Donald Trump message boards and social networks are making violent, antisemitic threats against the judge who reportedly signed the warrant that allowed the FBI to search the former president's Mar-a-Lago property in Florida.

Multiple members of these toxic online communities are even posting what appears to be Judge Bruce Reinhart’s home address, phone numbers, and names of his family members alongside threats of extreme violence.

“This is the piece of *censored* judge who approved FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago,” a user wrote on the pro-Trump message board formerly known as TheDonald. “I see a rope around his neck.”

Can you blame any judge for recusing themselves from a case involving the orange one?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #266 on: August 16, 2022, 08:52:09 AM »
Well what some radio station on the radio said was that the same guy who approved the warrant had in another Trump case recused himself and that much was true as I linked a story confirming it. The rest that they went on about with speculation concerning judge shopping is just conjecture. I didn't recognize the talk show host but in any case the judge considers himself too biased to give a fair shake to Trump, or at least he did before. Maybe since then he's come around to hating Trump less. Nobody else has though so that's hard to believe. To be fair, I can see how granting a warrant and presiding over a case are two completely different animals so this could very well be another nothing burger. It all depends on whether or not that warrant would have been granted regardless of the judge.

Okay, to be fair again maybe animosity toward Trump had nothing to do with the recusal as you pointed out. That we don't know. The radio guy either implied it did or said as much, that this judge or magistrate or whatever was an outspoken Trump hater. If that isn't true then I heard some fake news.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #267 on: August 16, 2022, 11:36:12 AM »
Well what some radio station on the radio said was that the same guy who approved the warrant had in another Trump case recused himself and that much was true as I linked a story confirming it. The rest that they went on about with speculation concerning judge shopping is just conjecture. I didn't recognize the talk show host but in any case the judge considers himself too biased to give a fair shake to Trump, or at least he did before. Maybe since then he's come around to hating Trump less. Nobody else has though so that's hard to believe. To be fair, I can see how granting a warrant and presiding over a case are two completely different animals so this could very well be another nothing burger. It all depends on whether or not that warrant would have been granted regardless of the judge.

Okay, to be fair again maybe animosity toward Trump had nothing to do with the recusal as you pointed out. That we don't know. The radio guy either implied it did or said as much, that this judge or magistrate or whatever was an outspoken Trump hater. If that isn't true then I heard some fake news.

I for one appreciate you keeping an open mind, Cherry.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #268 on: August 16, 2022, 01:02:42 PM »
...

Of course not. You should cut back on your sarcasm. The documents came with him after they were declassified. OTOH; Hillary had no power of declassification when she acid-washed hard drives and destroyed phones with a hammer over items that were subpoenaed.

Legislators demanded the release of the affidavit, which would include details like why the warrant was sought in the first place.
...

You don't have to wonder. Trump had documents marked as classified, top secret, and TS/SCI secured by a padlock in his basement at Mar-a-Lago. He isn't authorized to have classified documents anymore. He never had the documents properly declassified. If he had we could submit FOIA requests to see the contents.

But even if he had somehow declassified the documents, that wasn't even germane to the warrant.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/15/1117607474/the-documents-the-fbi-searched-in-mar-a-lago-dont-hinge-on-being-classified

Quote
GERSTELL: It's awfully hard to accept that for both legal reasons and, almost more importantly, practical reasons. We've had - ever since the United States introduced a very detailed system of classifying our nation's secrets going back to the time of President Truman right after World War II, we've had a very, very specific procedure for how we classify the nation's secrets and then also, very importantly, how we declassify them. And that process, which is written down in both statutes and executive orders of the presidents that are binding on both Republican and Democratic presidents, say that there has to be a process. Someone needs to make an affirmative decision as to what kind of damage would result to national security, if any, as a result of a declassification. The agency that's involved that created the information in the first place has to be consulted. They get to say, gee, this would be a problem for us, or, no, it wouldn't. And then it has to be memorialized and recorded and that information disseminated out to the rest of the government.

Why? Because if another agency the next morning got a request from the public or under a Freedom of Information Act to release the information, they would have to know what has been declassified.
...
KELLY: Let me invite you to take a step back with me and consider, legally, is it even relevant whether Trump declassified these papers or didn't? And I'm asking because the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago referenced three potential crimes that the FBI is investigating, three statutes, not one of which depends on whether these documents were classified. Does it matter?

GERSTELL: Actually, it doesn't. And I think what's listed in the search warrant is fascinating both for what it includes and what it doesn't include. What it doesn't include, interestingly - and the search warrant is limited to three specific statutes. And the one that it didn't cover is a statute that makes it a crime to knowingly remove or retain classified documents. That statute wasn't listed. Why? I suspect that's because the Department of Justice wanted to be on extremely solid ground when they undertook this search warrant. And, of course, they were also aware that maybe the president claimed he had declassified this stuff.

So they didn't list that section there because they wanted to list three other statutes that have nothing to do with whether a document is declassified. One is a provision of the Espionage Act that relates to the mishandling of something called national defense information; not quite the same as classified documents - similar. And the other two statutes relate generally to mishandling of official government documents, nothing to do with whether they've been declassified. They could be as declassified as possible, and you might still be guilty of a crime under these other two statutes which relate to just mishandling of government records and storing them improperly.

KELLY: So as someone who has handled a lot of classified documents, what question is foremost in your mind now? Where does this go?

GERSTELL: I think the key thing that we need to recognize is that we should try to step back and divorce this case from the politics and the emotion for a second and simply say that if the Department of Justice was faced with a situation in which someone - some former government employee, whether high-ranking or low-ranking - was known to be in possession of government documents, including ones that are apparently top secret, what would the government do? And in this case, the government would in every case say, let's try to get them back. We can't run the risk that they're in an insecure place, that perhaps Chinese spies or some other adversary would try to get them. And they would ask for them back. And the government has a strong reason to do so and a deep history of doing that almost without regard to who's involved.

And this effort - first, they asked for them back; then they issued a subpoena; and then finally they undertook a search to seize the documents - is exactly what I would expect the government to do. The question of whether there is a subsequent prosecution is a separate issue. And the Department of Justice will weigh all the facts and make a decision on that. But step one is getting documents back so that our national security is no longer at risk.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #269 on: August 16, 2022, 01:06:06 PM »
Wm
Where does this unfettered authority come from?  Not the Constitution since the whole system was not put into place until at least the second half of the 20th century. So it was done by regulation, right?  I find it hard to believe that the President can, at a whim, do what ever he wants with sensitive information, with no oversite what so ever.

But still no comment from you on the judgement to declassify any document just because he took it to the Residence.

You find it hard to believe the President is the final arbiter of Classification? Forget asking me my sources. What is yours for denying fact? Are you attempting to deflect or just more of your constant sneering and bullying?

You keep asking about your lame deflecting questions that are easily ignored - but never answer my cogent questios. Did you replay to Hillary Clinton operatives secretly working with Archives officials and the Justice Department for several months and are behind the push for the investigation of Trump as “revenge” for Clinton being investigated for mishandling classified materials in her Emailgate scandal?

Here's a question... Will you please respond to all the questionable DOJ actions? Where do you want to start? The lack of action on all the attacks on multiple pro-life centers and their people vs. the immediate charging of someone attacking a pro-choice center? How about the 14 FBI whistleblowers revealing the out-of-control seventh floor? Want to discuss Garland, Wray, Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan, Strzok, Page, Schiff? Three were fired for cause. How about Lerner who targeted Conservative groups via the IRS? Why do you shill for these criminal predators?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #270 on: August 16, 2022, 01:23:40 PM »
Just because the President can declassify anything doesn't mean he can do so in any manner he desires. It is entirely reasonable that he might not be able to declassify documents en mass. It was the position of his own administration that not all statements purporting to declassify documents were sufficient to actually to declassify them.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #271 on: August 16, 2022, 01:52:24 PM »
Good Lord, William. Drink some chamomile tea and put a hot towel on your head.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #272 on: August 16, 2022, 02:49:29 PM »
Has Trump said why he wanted those documents? To what purpose?

The number of wild 'excuses' just another move in the Trump playbook to muddy the waters.  And the red hats lap it up never looking to deep at how they might see things differently if the likes of Hillary were involved.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #273 on: August 16, 2022, 03:22:39 PM »
I'll respond to it.

Quote
"Sources say Hillary Clinton operatives have been secretly working with Archives officials and the Justice Department for several months and are behind the push for the investigation of Trump as “revenge” for Clinton being investigated for mishandling classified materials in her Emailgate scandal."

First, it doesn't appear that he's written any article on the subject, he just lobbed this as a tweet. His anonymous "sources" don't impress me, certainly no more so than CNN anonymous sources. He's a Trumpian through and through. He doesn't even say "government sources highly placed but not authorized to speak". His source could just be an 8chan message board guy named "Trump4Eva". Got anything remotely credible about the shadowy Clinton operatives?

You want to know why nobody wants to respond to your points any more? Because its like Lucy asking us to kick the football again. You have no legitimate interest in trying to objectively ascertain the truth or likelihood of your dubious facts, so why should we make the effort?

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #274 on: August 16, 2022, 03:24:09 PM »
I was thinking about addressing Jim Jordan's 14 mythical whistleblowers, but figured that it wasn't productive to poke any of William's jelly-like "cogent questios (sic)" just to watch them jiggle.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #275 on: August 16, 2022, 03:46:35 PM »
Well I have first hand knowledge of second hand info of someone who new someone who had a friend of a cousin that has a photo of themselves with Hillary... Say that Hilary packed for Trump to get him in a gotcha.  I think it was Keven Bacon or someone that knows Keven Bacon. But that's what happened

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #276 on: August 16, 2022, 04:16:22 PM »
An example of Trump declassifying intel but not caring what it does to National Security.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/oval-office-incident-2019-perfectly-173357590.html

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #277 on: August 16, 2022, 04:23:19 PM »
silly rabbit. When the supreme "leader" does anything its has to be ok, right and good. He's supreme, that's just logic. 

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #278 on: August 16, 2022, 08:36:18 PM »
silly rabbit. When the supreme "leader" does anything its has to be ok, right and good. He's supreme, that's just logic.

You are talking about Biden, aren't you?

This fixation on Trump is self-incriminating. Do you, Tom, and msquared, get a paycheck from Soros, or are you so intent on ignoring the unfair attacks that you seem to somehow miss them when you watch CNN or MSNBC?

The strawman Trump you envision in your minds is easy to laugh at - but it is not Trump. Why not explain the obvious left-wing attacks?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #279 on: August 16, 2022, 08:43:43 PM »
“due to attorney-client privilege, Trump’s team asked the Justice Department for their position on whether they would support a third party, independent special master to review those records, but sources told Fox News that the DOJ notified Trump’s team that they would oppose that request.”

Why?

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #280 on: August 16, 2022, 09:27:01 PM »
Why should they?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #281 on: August 17, 2022, 12:37:39 AM »
Emphasis mine, Article is from the Washington Examiner, a conservative leaning outlet.

Quote
Former President Donald Trump said he wants any privileged records seized during the FBI's raid on Mar-a-Lago returned to him.

The declaration was made not in court but on Trump's social media platform Sunday morning after Fox News reported agents seized boxes containing records covered by attorney-client privilege and potentially executive privilege from the former president's Florida residence.

"Oh great! It has just been learned that the FBI, in its now famous raid of Mar-a-Lago, took boxes of privileged 'attorney-client' material, and also 'executive' privileged material, which they knowingly should not have taken," Trump said on Truth Social. "By copy of this TRUTH, I respectfully request that these documents be immediately returned to the location from which they were taken. Thank you!"

Sources told Fox News that Trump's team asked the Justice Department if it would support an independent special master to review the records, but the agency said it would oppose the request. The DOJ and FBI declined to comment, the news outlet said.

Andrew McCarthy, the former chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, said on Fox News that Trump could make a motion under the rules of criminal procedure to get his property back, but offered some words of caution.

"I'd be a little leery to do that if I thought they were investigating me because if you take a position and then they charge you, you’re kind of locked into what you said," McCarthy said. "So if he doesn’t absolutely need that material back, I think I’d lay low in the tall grass for a while and see what they do."

So you want the FBI to respond to truth-tweets? Judges to rule on it? Trump wants to ask for it back, he's got a recourse for that. But he'd have to follow the rules, rather than squeal like a piglet.

Also- "It has just been learned." Wouldn't he and his attorneys already know that privileged material had been removed? Would they need Fox to report on it first to complain? Why be so outraged, when it is a standard procedure to seize everything, then sort it out later. Were the agents supposed to comb through on the spot and collate material?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #282 on: August 17, 2022, 12:43:49 AM »
As far as if they would oppose it, isn't it possible that DOJ would oppose it because in fact the documents are not covered by attorney client privilege? This privilege is also waived if it involves the commission of a crime, mind you. If Trump's lawyers advised him that keeping these documents was illegal, then it is material in furtherance of a crime or some such. The assumption you make, wm, is that they are going to oppose something wholly reasonable and proper because they are secret Clinton operatives, which is on the level of an illucid conspiracy theory.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #283 on: August 17, 2022, 08:10:35 AM »
As far as if they would oppose it, isn't it possible that DOJ would oppose it because in fact the documents are not covered by attorney client privilege? This privilege is also waived if it involves the commission of a crime, mind you. If Trump's lawyers advised him that keeping these documents was illegal, then it is material in furtherance of a crime or some such. The assumption you make, wm, is that they are going to oppose something wholly reasonable and proper because they are secret Clinton operatives, which is on the level of an illucid conspiracy theory.

It wouldn't matter if they did appoint a special master. If they didn't give the result Trump wanted it would just be another deep state/Clinton/never Trumper/democratic operative. Basically it wouldn't change anyone's mind. It would just slow things down. And stall, appeal, delay is the entire Trump legal strategy.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #284 on: August 17, 2022, 08:15:53 AM »
Wm how about your fixation on Hillary?  Transference anyone?

I am fixated on Trump since I view his continued participation in American politics.  If he had just accepted his legitimate defeat handed to him by the American public, I would leave him alone.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #285 on: August 17, 2022, 08:30:14 AM »
Trump felt that the documents generated during his Presidency were his and not the countries.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/oval-office-incident-2019-perfectly-173357590.html

In defiance of Presidential Records Act.

Trump ignores laws he does not like.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #286 on: August 17, 2022, 09:17:15 AM »
silly rabbit. When the supreme "leader" does anything its has to be ok, right and good. He's supreme, that's just logic.

You are talking about Biden, aren't you?

This fixation on Trump is self-incriminating. Do you, Tom, and msquared, get a paycheck from Soros, or are you so intent on ignoring the unfair attacks that you seem to somehow miss them when you watch CNN or MSNBC?

The strawman Trump you envision in your minds is easy to laugh at - but it is not Trump. Why not explain the obvious left-wing attacks?

When was the last time you objectively questioned anything your 'leader' said or did? 
When was the last morning you didn't login to your bubble to get your talking points to disseminate without questioning what you were repeating or even why? 

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #287 on: August 17, 2022, 09:34:57 AM »
I do not get a paycheck from Soros or Gates.  I do not have cable so do not watch CNN or MSNBC.

i watch live broadcasts of the Jan 6 insurrection as it happened.  I saw thousands of Trump supporters riot and storm the Capitol.  I saw Trump do nothing for hours.  I watched it happen live. And all that I have found since then only makes it worse. The Oath Keepers. The Proud Boys. Trump's call to GA.

All of the findings by the audits run by Republicans have found the same thing.  He lost.

You think there was some country spanning plot to steal the 2020 election that would have involved several hundred if not thousands of people across every state in the land. But after almost 2 years all you have is conjecture.  No real evidence.  You have some mathematician who says his data analysis shows Biden victory was very unlikely.  But that is not evidence, that is conjecture. No evidence of wide spread fraud. Anywhere. No witnesses who say they muled thousands of votes. Every single person involved has been able to keep silent.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #288 on: August 17, 2022, 12:52:24 PM »
I have watched this guys videos for years and he is always clear and methodical.  Warning about half an hour long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekefMUICOGo

One take away.  It does not matter if Trump declassified the documents. The are still protected from his just taking them. So all this blather about Trump being the ultimate authority to declassify does not seem to be the main issue.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #289 on: August 17, 2022, 01:27:49 PM »
The issue if Trump could wave his hand and declassified them is part of the misdirect to muddy the waters.
The issue of taking the documents and only returning some after the first subpoena is a matter for law not public opinion. Trumps lawyers can make the above argument but I doubt they will.

The question you wont ever get answered is Why Trump chose the documents that he did to take with him and not return after the initial subpoena requesting that he do so.
To what purpose did Trump intend to use those documents?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #290 on: August 17, 2022, 01:49:11 PM »
Also if any of the documents dealt with Nukes, then is is not allowed to unilaterally  declassify them.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #291 on: August 17, 2022, 02:55:22 PM »
I do not get a paycheck from Soros or Gates.  I do not have cable so do not watch CNN or MSNBC.

i watch live broadcasts of the Jan 6 insurrection as it happened.  I saw thousands of Trump supporters riot and storm the Capitol.  I saw Trump do nothing for hours.  I watched it happen live. And all that I have found since then only makes it worse. The Oath Keepers. The Proud Boys. Trump's call to GA.

All of the findings by the audits run by Republicans have found the same thing.  He lost.

You think there was some country spanning plot to steal the 2020 election that would have involved several hundred if not thousands of people across every state in the land. But after almost 2 years all you have is conjecture.  No real evidence.  You have some mathematician who says his data analysis shows Biden victory was very unlikely.  But that is not evidence, that is conjecture. No evidence of wide spread fraud. Anywhere. No witnesses who say they muled thousands of votes. Every single person involved has been able to keep silent.

No, there were hundreds of eyewitness affidavits that were not examined by the courts. They were said to lack standing. Please explain to all of us, how the official poll watchers were denied standing to file these reports. Without those affidavits, what police action can be brought?

Yes there was at least a five-state-spanning plot to steal the election. You seem to ignore the threads pulled together to prove that. You rely on the dismissal of those affidavits, without which the vote scammers were never investigated. I remind you of how the FBI works these days. There are many attacks on pro-life targets that were ignored. There was one pro-abortion attack that was immediately investigated and the perpetrator indicted within four days. Evidently if a criminal is a Democrat, he/she gets a pass.

I bring up Hillary, because her felonies were blatant and admitted - yet ignored by Comey - and thereafter by all his agents.

To repeat: There were 16 legitimate Hillary violations:
Quote
UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL AND RETENTION OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS OR MATERIAL
18 U.S.C. § 1924 Class: A misdemeanor
Possible penalty: imprisonment for 1 year and/or $100,000 fine
"Knowingly removing materials containing classified information of the United States with the intent to retain said info at an unauthorized location without the ability to do so."

GATHERING, TRANSMITTING OR LOSING DEFENSE INFORMATION
18 U.S.C. § 793 Class: Felony
Possible penalty: imprisonment for 10 years and/or $250,000 fine
"Allowing (by means of gross negligence) any document relating to the national defense to be removed from its proper place of custody or destroyed -or- willfully retaining unauthorized documents relating to national defense and failing to deliver them to the United States employee entitled to receive them -or- failure to report that unauthorized documents relating to national defense were removed from their proper place of custody or destroyed."

CONCEALING, REMOVAL, OR MUTILATION GENERALLY
18 U.S.C. § 2071 Class: Felony
Possible penalty: imprisonment of no more than 3 years, a fine, or both
"Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same."

Note: none of these laws permit a get-out-of-jail-free card based on intention. The same laws were used, at the same time as Hillary did this, to indict a submariner who had no intention of doing anything with the photos he took of his work place. He was given prison time.

Hillary Clinton recklessly discussed, in emails hosted on her private server, an Iranian nuclear scientist who was executed by Iran for treason. She outed Shahram Amiri, who gave information to the U.S. about Iran's nuclear program. Her emails were read in Iran and elsewhere.

Iran confirmed that Amiri had been hanged for treason. He was convicted of spying charges, according to the Associated Press.

Hillary provided his name so they could say: "This person who had access to the country's secret and classified information had been linked to our hostile and No. 1 enemy, America, the Great Satan" a spokesman for the Iranian judiciary said. "He provided the enemy with vital and secret information of the country."

Comey said she did it, but because he didn't think it was intentional, said no prosecutor would move on it. It was illegal for him to exonerate her, but he did and was later fired.

As for your seeing live broadcasts of the Jan 6 insurrection as it happened - not on cable - you obviously saw the edited-down version which probably ignored the shots of the security guards waving the protestors in through the opened doors, and leading others to join them. I saw it as it happened, and saw it rebroadcast numerous times on the networks you never watch. It was also on YouTube - but you woud have had to know it existed to search for it. Did you see unarmed Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt, being killed by one of Pelosi's guards? It has been over 577 days and Ashi still has not had justice served.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2022, 03:03:54 PM by wmLambert »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #292 on: August 17, 2022, 03:01:44 PM »
Also if any of the documents dealt with Nukes, then is is not allowed to unilaterally  declassify them.

Sorry, but you are pretending you know the law. As President, Trump was the head of all enforcement - Nuclear info included - and his decision of what or how to declassify documents was entirely up to him. You have no say in it. If the NARA librarian, who may have caused all this mischief, said that, then Biden's proposed disinformation Czar would have been forced to slap him down for lying.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #293 on: August 17, 2022, 03:04:32 PM »
Watch the video. He was not on Nuke info.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #294 on: August 17, 2022, 03:45:48 PM »
...
No, there were hundreds of eyewitness affidavits that were not examined by the courts. They were said to lack standing.
...

I am guessing its still worthless to ask you to pick one affidavit and explain the following:
1) why its credible
2) how it shows wide scale fraud
3) give a source the affidavit
4) tell us where (county/precinct) the fraud happened
5) tell us how many votes were impacted

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #295 on: August 17, 2022, 04:05:45 PM »
Also if any of the documents dealt with Nukes, then is is not allowed to unilaterally  declassify them.

Sorry, but you are pretending you know the law. As President, Trump was the head of all enforcement - Nuclear info included - and his decision of what or how to declassify documents was entirely up to him. You have no say in it. If the NARA librarian, who may have caused all this mischief, said that, then Biden's proposed disinformation Czar would have been forced to slap him down for lying.

You claim not to server the supreme leader Trump and then grant him all power to do as he wishes that you then project onto Biden

If Trump has the power to wave his hand and declassify documents without following any procedures that will be up to his Lawyer's to argue (my bet is that they will not) Saying that as supreme leader he has the power does not make it so. Let the courts work out this distraction to the real issues.

Tell me William to what purpose did Trump take those documents and wave his magical hands over to make it ok to take.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #296 on: August 17, 2022, 04:48:43 PM »
Here's one problem with the "Trump unilaterally declared documents to be unclassified" idea:

If the President can declare a document to be unclassified, shouldn't he be able to declare it classified, too?  I mean, if he is the final authority, shouldn't deciding that something should be classified within his power, too?  If, for instance, circumstances change so that a certain document is now a security risk, or if it came to his attention that it was declassified in error?

So if Joe Biden, or one of his representatives, told Trump that documents he has are classified, doesn't that mean they are now classified, regardless of whether Trump declassified them or not?  And shouldn't he have immediately surrendered such documents when told so?

Or does the final authority to classify and declassify documents rest solely with President Donald Trump (ret.)?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #297 on: August 18, 2022, 08:23:05 AM »
Not sure if this is a win or loss for Trump but Alex Jones is now out of the Trump camp.  I guess he was a Soros/Gates deep plant never Trumper the whole time.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alex-jones-turns-donald-trump-040546216.html

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #298 on: August 18, 2022, 08:58:28 AM »
I am guessing that many in the GOP political world would like to see Trump disappear and be replaced by someone a little less volatile.  I am not sure what is worse.  A crazy like Trump who can't be controlled by the party or someone who has the leadership skills to push things so far right we'll enter a new Dark Ages of corporatism and religious rule.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Trump looses again
« Reply #299 on: August 18, 2022, 08:59:38 AM »
I know an anti-vaxxer who feels the same way as Jones in not liking Trump because Trump was pro-vaccine. It's just interesting seeing pro-vaccine people supporting Jones turning on Trump when that's one of the main reasons.

A lot of people hate Jones for the Sandyhook accusations so Jones turning on Trump should be a net positive for Trump.