How do you explain a Trump presidency to your kids?

[G.I. Blues]

But Mike Edwards basically claimed that it was not Trump who took the papers down to Florida, so how could he have declassified the documents without even knowing they were moved?

I didn't say he didn't take them, I said he didn't pack them.

And why were they lying around in the first instance when someone packed his stuff?

[mike edwards66]

But Mike Edwards basically claimed that it was not Trump who took the papers down to Florida, so how could he have declassified the documents without even knowing they were moved?

I didn't say he didn't take them, I said he didn't pack them.

And why were they lying around in the first instance when someone packed his stuff?

I doubt they were lying around.

[Mike C]

In essence you are dead right. What we have here is a simple processing error. Someone other that Trump must have packed those boxes when getting ready to leave the WH, clearly just grabbing whatever they thought they should, including newspapers and magazines. With the best will, Trump would have gotten round to sorting through them eventually, then returned whatever needed returning.

Yup, that sounds completely correct to me!
A stack of magazines and newspapers and every now and then some top secret documents in between.
Sh*t happens and it wasn't even his fault, because some sloppy employee packed the documents and magazines.

Maybe you can also explain to us, why such kind of documents were lying around in the first instance when someone packed his stuff.

Despite their markings, they are not top secret. By taking the papers down to Mar-a-Lago as President, Trump declassified them. He had full declassification power as President per Article II of the Constitution -- there is no specified requirements he must follow as the Executive Branch.

However, assuming the documents were not declassified, the President cannot be charged with violating the Espionage Act because it simply does not apply to the President. See the relevant case law below.

Thank you for your assessment.

But Mike Edwards basically claimed that it was not Trump who took the papers down to Florida, so how could he have declassified the documents without even knowing they were moved?

And if I remember correctly, Trump is not the President, is he?

You're welcome. He is no longer President. But when he left the White House on January 19th, he was still the President and had the power to declassify. Therefore, when he took the boxes with the disputed documents, his action declassified these documents.

A president can declassify information in any manner he/she chooses. The "requirements" the media keeps referring to applies to anyone else in he Executive Branch who has been delegated the President's Article II power. For example, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had to follow the requirements. Hence. when several hundred classified documents were found on her home-brew server (a server which, as intelligence officials concluded, almost certainly was hacked by foreign governments, she was investigated by DOJ and the FBI.

[BrianTCB]

Oh, it gets much worse.

Known Timeline:

1. 7/31/2019: Trump spoke with Putin (NYT)

2. 8/3/2019: Trump issued a request for a list of top US spies (The Daily Beast)

3. 10/5/2021: "CIA Admits to Losing Dozens of Informants". (NYT)

4. 8/26/2022: Documents at MAL Could Compromise Human Intel (NYT) 1/5

==========================================

[BrianTCB]

By the way, Mike C - since you are such an expert, and licensed to practice such law, why don't you apply with former President Trump himself and become his personal attorney? That would be a lot of money. And you could prove yourself to this forum, once and for all.

I hear he's having a hell of a time finding any attorneys who will represent him.

Trump Having Hard Time Finding Lawyers Because They Want To Be Paid: Journalist

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-lawyer-shortage-payment-refuses-to-listen-maggie-haberman_n_6302c273e4b0f7df9bb16e43

Donald Trump is reportedly having a difficult time finding lawyers to represent him in part because they want to be paid, New York Times political reporter Maggie Haberman sniped Sunday.

“You are seeing many fewer lawyers who are willing to go out and speak for him and/or hitch their wagon [to him] and maybe not get paid — which is a big thing,” Haberman told host Abby Phillip on CNN’s “Inside Politics.”

Trump has a reputation for ignoring or litigating bills for various services.

He reportedly failed to pay Rudy Giuliani despite his years of work on Trump’s behalf.

Giuliani associate Maria Ryan reportedly pleaded in a letter intended for Trump to pay him. She submitted a bill for $2.5 million to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows for Giuliani’s services, according to an upcoming book by journalist Andrew Kirtzman, “Giuliani: The Rise and Tragic Fall of America’s Mayor.”

The letter was intercepted by a Giuliani adviser before it reached Trump.

Lack of payment is not the only thing scaring off attorneys.

Lawyer Alan Dershowitz, a champion of Trump who defended him in his first impeachment trial, told Business Insider that most reputable law firms are fearful that a relationship with Trump now will scare off other businesses.

“The firms won’t let them go near any case involving Trump. These are firms that want to continue to have clients, and they know that if they represent Donald Trump, they’ll lose a lot of clients,” he told Insider.

Haberman also said Trump is a difficult client.

“He doesn’t like to listen to his lawyers,” she explained. “The fact that it takes a huge effort to get him to do so by his lawyers always. This is an ongoing story we’ve been watching — frankly not just since he became president, but well before, going back to when he was advised by Roy Cohn many decades ago,” she added.

That's okay. I like my current practice and appellate practice is not my bag. But I am a lawyer -- been practicing for many years. Come to my house and I'll be glad to show you my bar license!

So, you're saying that Trump should be denied his right to counsel?

Seriously, can you please explain to me why the Orange Man drives liberals crazy? Is it only because he beat Hilary in 2016?

I thought so.

Were we not in a pandemic, I'd be open to the opportunity.

Naaahhhh. Trump really is crazy. Hillary losing is 6 years ago now. We've all moved on already. We're more concerned about the threat to democracy and Trump selling the nation's secrets to the highest bidder.

[Mike C]

Oh, it gets much worse.

Known Timeline:

1. 7/31/2019: Trump spoke with Putin (NYT)

2. 8/3/2019: Trump issued a request for a list of top US spies (The Daily Beast)

3. 10/5/2021: "CIA Admits to Losing Dozens of Informants". (NYT)

4. 8/26/2022: Documents at MAL Could Compromise Human Intel (NYT) 1/5

==========================================

Now this is conspiracy theory stuff! When Trump spoke to Putin in 2019, he was the President. And, I'm sorry, but I give no credence to a Daily Beast Report. They are a far-left web site and not exactly known for credibility.

As to why the CIA sent out the warning to agents in October 2021, if you read the Times story, the CIA gave the warning because it felt its double agents were being lax in protecting their cover.

Recall, this warning came just after the disastrous pull-out from Afghanistan where our State Department gave the Taliban a list of all Americans and other essential personnel (i.e., human informants) who we wanted to be allowed into the Kabul Airport to get out of the country. That is the more likely reason why the CIA issued its warning as the Taliban made it clear they were going to track down anyone who helped the US efforts while we controlled the country.

U.S. officials provided Taliban with names of Americans, Afghan allies to evacuate
The White House contends that limited information sharing with the Taliban is saving lives; critics argue it's putting Afghan allies in harm's way.

“Basically, they just put all those Afghans on a kill list,”[/b] said one defense official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic. “It’s just appalling and shocking and makes you feel unclean.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/26/us-officials-provided-taliban-with-names-of-americans-afghan-allies-to-evacuate-506957

[Mike C]

I thought so.

Were we not in a pandemic, I'd be open to the opportunity.

Naaahhhh. Trump really is crazy. Hillary losing is 6 years ago now. We've all moved on already. We're more concerned about the threat to democracy and Trump selling the nation's secrets to the highest bidder.

Brian, the pandemic is over according to the CDC. Come on down!

[BrianTCB]

I thought so.

Were we not in a pandemic, I'd be open to the opportunity.

Naaahhhh. Trump really is crazy. Hillary losing is 6 years ago now. We've all moved on already. We're more concerned about the threat to democracy and Trump selling the nation's secrets to the highest bidder.

Brian, the pandemic is over according to the CDC. Come on down!

The pandemic is not over until:

1. No more cases,
2. No more deaths,
3. 100% vaccinations.

Does all the above apply?

[BrianTCB]

So, Biden saving over 100,000 lives isn't important to you? But 13 lives lost are?

And yet, Trump lost 86 civilians in Yemen in the first days of his Presidency. And you don't care.

Trump, the War President, Leaves a Trail of Civilians Dead in Yemen

A new report sheds light on Donald Trump’s bloody continuation — and intensification — of the brutality of U.S. foreign policy.

https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/trump-yemen-war-civilian-deaths/

According to estimates provided by the report, at least 86 civilians were killed in airstrikes and raids carried out in Yemen on Trump’s watch. Most of these killings occurred during the years 2017 and 2018. In the context of U.S. military operations in Yemen, these two years were some of the most active in terms of strikes — and the deadliest for civilians. The full U.S. war effort in Yemen contains different components: raids and airstrikes carried out by the military, a separate covert campaign involving drones and other measures carried out by the CIA, and finally the indirect support provided by the U.S. to a Saudi-led coalition waging a separate, devastating war against Yemen’s Houthi rebel forces.

There can be no doubt that Trump has contributed to making Yemen into what Human Rights Watch has described as the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. After more than five years of war, millions find themselves on the brink of starvation in what was already one of the world’s poorest countries. Trump has been glad to oversee the intensification of this crisis, bombing and carrying out raids in the country periodically, as well as arming foreign states like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to aid in their own campaigns. In 2019, Trump even failed to take an off-ramp in Yemen: He issued his second presidential veto in order to block a move by Congress to end U.S. involvement in the war.

Nice warmonger you got there.

[BrianTCB]

Oh, it gets much worse.

Known Timeline:

1. 7/31/2019: Trump spoke with Putin (NYT)

2. 8/3/2019: Trump issued a request for a list of top US spies (The Daily Beast)

3. 10/5/2021: "CIA Admits to Losing Dozens of Informants". (NYT)

4. 8/26/2022: Documents at MAL Could Compromise Human Intel (NYT) 1/5

==========================================

Now this is conspiracy theory stuff! When Trump spoke to Putin in 2019, he was the President. And, I'm sorry, but I give no credence to a Daily Beast Report. They are a far-left web site and not exactly known for credibility.

You give no credence to anything against Trump, period.

[drjohncarpenter]

The desperation of the forum extremists to defend the indefensible is like flop sweat on the keyboard.

This story is going to get so bad they will do what they've done before, go radio silent.

Looking forward to that aspect of this latest crime by the disgraced, twice-impeached, seditious ex-president.

[Mike C]

The desperation of the forum extremists to defend the indefensible is like flop sweat on the keyboard.

This story is going to get so bad they will do what they've done before, go radio silent.

Looking forward to that aspect of this latest crime by the disgraced, twice-impeached, seditious ex-president.

That's comedy gold, Doc!

[Mike C]

I thought so.

Were we not in a pandemic, I'd be open to the opportunity.

Naaahhhh. Trump really is crazy. Hillary losing is 6 years ago now. We've all moved on already. We're more concerned about the threat to democracy and Trump selling the nation's secrets to the highest bidder.

Brian, the pandemic is over according to the CDC. Come on down!

The pandemic is not over until:

1. No more cases,
2. No more deaths,
3. 100% vaccinations.

Does all the above apply?

No but it also does not apply to diseases like the flu and polio. Indeed, they just found several cases of polio in Westchester County. Yet, we don't refer to these as pandemic.

Since you have noted you are fully vaccinated (as am I), you should be good to travel. My kids are in the pool as we speak. Bring down you're suit and cool off. We can go though my complete FTD collection!

[mike edwards66]

The desperation of the forum extremists to defend the indefensible is like flop sweat on the keyboard.

This story is going to get so bad they will do what they've done before, go radio silent.

Looking forward to that aspect of this latest crime by the disgraced, twice-impeached, seditious ex-president.

In reality, that's your worst nightmare isn't it, being on here alone with no one to talk to.

[drjohncarpenter]

The desperation of the forum extremists to defend the indefensible is like flop sweat on the keyboard.

This story is going to get so bad they will do what they've done before, go radio silent.

Looking forward to this, as we learn more about the latest crime by the disgraced, twice-impeached, seditious ex-president.


Hold on tight, America.
Justice is a-comin' . . .

[Mike C]

The desperation of the forum extremists to defend the indefensible is like flop sweat on the keyboard.

This story is going to get so bad they will do what they've done before, go radio silent.

Looking forward to this, as we learn more about the latest crime by the disgraced, twice-impeached, seditious ex-president.


Hold on tight, America.
Justice is a-comin' . . .

Comedy gold, Doc!! When is your next stand-up appearance?

Perhaps, you take a look at what a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI wrote in The Hill today. The Hill is not exactly a bastion of conservatism.

And, as former FBI official, he would know a lot about search warrants than the unnamed intelligence officials quoted by the New York Times or Washington Post, as well as all of the legal analysts trotted out on cable news! I have posted the piece for our edification below.

Unsealed Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit reveals the government has no case against Trump

BY KEVIN R. BROCK, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 08/28/22 11:45 AM ET
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

When two dozen or more FBI agents searched former President Trump’s residence three weeks ago, most Americans initially were left wondering what in the world must Trump have done. After all, a prodigious FBI search logically indicates an equally prodigious violation of some federal statute; therefore, it must be really serious. One former Department of Justice (DOJ) official told Politico that the evidence sought “was likely so pulverizing in its force” that it would “eviscerate” the possibility of the optics for such an invasive law enforcement action not being good.

Well, it’s now pretty official: The optics aren’t good.

Everyone in America, from plumber to president, is constitutionally protected from a government search that lacks adequate cause.

We now know why the DOJ wanted the affidavit — which is supposed to articulate the probable cause needed for a legitimate search — to be kept under seal. After the magistrate who authorized the search forced the DOJ to unseal a redacted version, two realities came into better focus.

First, the affidavit confirmed that the FBI’s investigation was triggered in January 2022 at the request of the National Archives, which wanted certain documents, especially classified documents, that it considered to be presidential records to be turned over to it by Trump. Second, from what I have seen, I don’t believe the affidavit articulates how a federal law was or is being broken. For those who hold out hope that the affidavit’s redacted sections fill that gap, there is almost no chance that they do. (More on that below.)

As to the first point, this matter is, as suspected, nothing more than a document dispute that was chugging along, appropriately, as a negotiation behind the scenes and apparently making some progress. I don’t see anything in the affidavit asserting a refusal by Trump to cooperate.

Any clinging hope — in certain quarters — that the affidavit possessed “pulverizing” cause to believe Trump was engaged in a truly serious federal violation can — I think — be considered dashed. The pipe dream that Trump was engaged in espionage, actively providing secrets to an enemy I think is as fanciful as the Steele dossier’s Moscow hotel bed reverie. And, no, I don’t believe a smoking gun of espionage or something equally shocking will be in the redacted sections. If the FBI had that, it would have fronted that in the unredacted portions.

As to the second and more important point, the affidavit’s probable cause statements focus on only half of what is needed to show a possible violation of the federal statutes that are cited in the warrant. The affidavit does a reasonable job of establishing cause to believe Trump possessed a range of classified materials — or at least once-classified materials — and that those materials were located in his residence.

But that’s not all that’s needed — in this case in particular. A criminal violation of those statutes only exists if it can be established that the person being investigated was not authorized to possess, store, transfer or copy those documents. This is an easy element to establish against anyone in America. Except one person.

The unredacted parts of the affidavit make no attempt to articulate cause that Trump was not authorized to have these documents in his home. The reason is that, as president, he had broad, legally intimidating authority, established by law and court determinations, to declassify any and all documents and to determine what is and is not a presidential record. Trump and his legal team have asserted that this authority was exercised while he was still president. Therefore, a violation of these fairly low-level and seldom-prosecuted document-oriented statutes cannot be proven.

I don’t think there’s much chance that the affidavit’s redacted portions contain some novel legal theory undercutting this broad, well-established presidential authority. Affidavits for intrusive searches of a private home — the most extreme action the government can take against a resident of the United States, short of arrest — are not the place for advancing theories. Probable cause must be built on facts.

The redacted sections are considerable. Redaction is supposed to be utilized only to protect sensitive methods and techniques — in other words, how the government came by its information that it doesn’t want to publicly divulge so it can keep using those tactics or protect providers of information. A good and prudent example would be the use of confidential human and/or technical sources. A bad example would be citing press reports, a la the Carter Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act affidavit.

The redacted portions therefore, normally, will simply cover how the FBI supported its assertions in the unredacted sections that Trump possessed classified materials in his residence — i.e., what confidential or sensitive sources were used to establish those facts. Don’t expect anything more.

The situation does not look good for the government. The Ivy League-educated attorneys of the DOJ had to know this adventure had little chance of an eventual successful prosecution. The use, therefore, of a highly intrusive search of a home simply as a forcing function to retrieve documents for the National Archives — and then not follow through with actual charges — spikes the potential abuse needle dramatically and will not help quiet the growing suspicion that this was more of a political hitjob to take Trump off the chessboard than it was the pursuit of blind justice.

I am often asked if the FBI had no choice but to pursue the National Archives request and open a case. Yes, it had a choice and, no, it didn’t have to open this investigation. The FBI declines to initiate cases involving more serious violations all the time.

The platitudinous justification from Democrats is “No one is above the law” — but we know that’s not true. The last time the Democrats controlled the DOJ, Hillary Clinton was set high aloft and placed out of reach of “reasonable” prosecution by then-FBI Director James Comey with the concurrence of the DOJ. Even Comey noted that she was clearly not authorized to possess highly classified documents on a private server.

Politicians on both the right and left say bombastic things that inflame passions and drive opposition attempts to eliminate competition. But involving our justice system in politically tainted efforts can never be tolerated. No citizen of this land, no matter who they are, should be subjected to a law enforcement action where there is an absence of evidence that anything illegal occurred.

Kevin R. Brock is a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He independently consults with private companies and public-safety agencies on strategic mission technologies.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3618515-unsealed-mar-a-lago-search-warrant-affidavit-reveals-the-government-has-no-case-against-trump/

[mike edwards66]

The desperation of the forum extremists to defend the indefensible is like flop sweat on the keyboard.

This story is going to get so bad they will do what they've done before, go radio silent.

Looking forward to this, as we learn more about the latest crime by the disgraced, twice-impeached, seditious ex-president.


Hold on tight, America.
Justice is a-comin' . . .

Speaking of radio silence, what are your thoughts on Biden's student loan forgiveness plan?

[BrianTCB]

The desperation of the forum extremists to defend the indefensible is like flop sweat on the keyboard.

This story is going to get so bad they will do what they've done before, go radio silent.

Looking forward to this, as we learn more about the latest crime by the disgraced, twice-impeached, seditious ex-president.


Hold on tight, America.
Justice is a-comin' . . .

Comedy gold, Doc!! When is your next stand-up appearance?

Perhaps, you take a look at what a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI wrote in The Hill today. The Hill is not exactly a bastion of conservatism.

And, as former FBI official, he would know a lot about search warrants than the unnamed intelligence officials quoted by the New York Times or Washington Post, as well as all of the legal analysts trotted out on cable news! I have posted the piece for our edification below.

[snip propaganda]

[BrianTCB]

The desperation of the forum extremists to defend the indefensible is like flop sweat on the keyboard.

This story is going to get so bad they will do what they've done before, go radio silent.

Looking forward to this, as we learn more about the latest crime by the disgraced, twice-impeached, seditious ex-president.


Hold on tight, America.
Justice is a-comin' . . .

Speaking of radio silence, what are your thoughts on Biden's student loan forgiveness plan?

Until republicans stop having their loans forgiven and they pay them all back, you have no right to criticisms.

SIT DOWN.

[BrianTCB]

[BrianTCB]

[BrianTCB]

[BrianTCB]

Much, much, much worse...

Over 10,000 govt docs without classified markings were seized from Mar-a-Lago, DOJ says

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/10000-government-docs-classified-markings-seized-trumps-mar-lago-doj-s-rcna46064

In addition to troves of information marked "secret" and "top secret," the FBI's search of former President Donald Trump's Florida home turned up over 10,000 U.S. government documents and photographs without classification markings, a newly unsealed Justice Department inventory of the seized items shows.

The Justice Department court filing, filed under seal earlier this week but unsealed by a judge Friday, also shows investigators found more than 40 empty folders with "classified" banners on them at Mar-a-Lago. It's unclear what happened to the information that had been inside the folders.

They also found almost four dozen empty folders marked "Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide," according to the detailed property inventory.

[MaryAnn]

SHAME! Shame on Trump for putting our country at risk. Traitor.

And of course, it’s not the first time. He invited, promoted, and encouraged the insurrectionists who sought to violently overthrow the government of the US prior to and on Jan. 6. Pardon them? Traitor.

It’s time for reasonable, rational citizens to focus on issues and debate them as mature people. All of us need to condemn violence and engage in actual discussion about what is best for the future of our country.

Trump and his MAGA cultists are on notice. The vast majority of Americans realize that the current situation is NOT normal and will be making their voices heard with their votes!

[Mike C]

Comedy gold, Doc!! When is your next stand-up appearance?

Perhaps, you take a look at what a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI wrote in The Hill today. The Hill is not exactly a bastion of conservatism.

And, as former FBI official, he would know a lot about search warrants than the unnamed intelligence officials quoted by the New York Times or Washington Post, as well as all of the legal analysts trotted out on cable news! I have posted the piece for our edification below.

[snip propaganda]

Brian, why don't you respond to the analysis and opinions in The Hill piece? Knocking down his analysis is how arguments are won inside courtrooms daily.

Your unwillingness to do so simply weakens your position.