Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Here's the basic difference between publishing and internet sites protected by Section 230;

I'll also add, that even online sites have a limit, but barring criminal activity (no conspiring to murder JFK on Twitter) they get to decide what that limit is. That limit is not the First Amendment. Facebook is not a government agency. Anyone who claims their First Amendment rights are being stifled by a social media ban is lying, trolling, or a fucking dumbass.

[Endus]

I'll also add, that even online sites have a limit, but barring criminal activity (no conspiring to murder JFK on Twitter) they get to decide what that limit is. That limit is not the First Amendment. Facebook is not a government agency. Anyone who claims their First Amendment rights are being stifled by a social media ban is lying, trolling, or a fucking dumbass.

I mean, there's a certain legal standard they can be held to; if someone posts child porn (illegal content, using an incontrovertible example), and it's reported to staff, and they either choose not to remove it or drag their feet unreasonably in responding, that can result in legal consequences. But the key part there is that the material has to be brought to staff attention, and you have to prove they were negligent in their response to those reports. If it isn't reported, they can plead ignorance, precisely because there's too much content for manual oversight, but if it is, that excuse goes away and there's essentially a timer that starts for a reasonable response. That's all in Section 230; it isn't just a blanket immunity.

[Breccia]

Sometimes it's worth burning a CNN point.

Trump loses in court again. He had a RICO lawsuit against Clinton and the Democrats for conspiring to lie about him and Russia.

The lawsuit was thrown out on the grounds that it was bullshit.

"Oh, come on, what did the judge really say?"

...really? Okay. Fine. I'll start at the beginning.

First, the pleading itself. A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Each
allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. Each claim must be stated in numbered paragraphs,

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is 193 pages in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs. It
contains 14 counts, names 31 defendants, 10 “John Does” described as fictitious and unknown
persons, and 10 “ABC Corporations” identified as fictitious and unknown entities. Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint is neither short nor plain, and it certainly does not establish that Plaintiff is
entitled to any relief.

More troubling, the claims presented in the Amended Complaint are not warranted under
existing law. In fact, they are foreclosed by existing precedent, including decisions of the Supreme
Court. To illustrate, I highlight here just two glaring problems with the Amended Complaint. There
are many others.

And it goes on like that. For sixty-five pages.

Page nine:

The Amended Complaint also contains impermissible fictitious-party pleading. “As a
general matter, fictitious-party pleading is not permitted in federal court.” Richardson v. Johnson,
598 F.3d 734, 738 (11th Cir. 2010)

Trump had forty-one fictitious parties. He was allowed zero.

Page fourteen:

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations to the contrary are belied by the material cited in his own Amended Complaint.

Pages twenty-three to twenty-five are about how Trump missed the statute of limitations, because his tweets weren't court filings. No really, there's an entire page of footnotes on how wrong Trump was on that one.

Pages thirty-five and thirty-six:

For one, Plaintiff has not alleged facts that bring the DNS internet traffic at issue within
the statutory definition of a “trade secret.” Plaintiff suggests that because DNS data could reveal
a compilation of sensitive information about him, it is a trade secret.13 (DE 237 at 31). That is
incorrect. To constitute a “trade secret,” as that term is statutorily defined, “the owner [must have]
taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret” and the information must “derive[]
independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being
readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value
from the disclosure or use of the information.” 18 U.S.C. 1839(3). Critically, Plaintiff fails to allege
that he or anyone else could or did derive economic value from information regarding the
frequency with which his computers interacted with certain other computers. See Kairam v. West
Side GI, LLC, 793 F. App’x 23, 28 (2d Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of DTSA claim in part for
failure to allege how the purported trade secret derives independent economic value from
nondisclosure). He alleges that such data has political value and that Clinton, as his political rival,
sought it for political purposes. (Am. Compl. ¶ 138). But this does not suffice to plausibly allege
a trade secret, which must derive economic value from nondisclsoure.

Almost every single paragraph is how fucking badly Trump screwed this up. Every fact is wrong. Every filing is wrong. Every precedent is miscited. Every term is misunderstood, often to a hilarious degree.

Those examples? They weren't even my favorites. I just grabbed three pages at random, assuming Trump fucked on them. I was right, three for three. I had to throw in the tweets thing because it was just too Trumpian.

There's a reason this lawsuit skipped past the news -- it's fat orange garbage. I'd @cubby on this just to give him a laugh on Friday. Seriously you have to read this shit, it's like Plan 9 From Outer Space where Trump is Ed Wood.

Finally, the conclusion:

Fundamentally, Plaintiff cannot state a RICO claim without two predicate acts, and, after
two attempts, he has failed to plausibly allege even one. Plaintiff cannot state an injurious
falsehood claim without allegations of harm to his property interests. And Plaintiff cannot state a
malicious prosecution claim without a judicial proceeding, but he unsuccessfully attempts to
misconstrue, misstate, and misapply the law to do so anyway. Moreover, Plaintiff’s statutory
claims premised on the DNS data rest on a misconstruction of the conduct those laws proscribe
and the harms they remediate. Because Plaintiff was unable to cure his Complaint even with all its
shortcomings clearly laid out for him, and because most of Plaintiff’s claims are not only
unsupported by any legal authority but plainly foreclosed by binding precedent as set forth by the
Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit, I find that amendment would be futile and that this case
should be dismissed with prejudice as to the Defendants that have raised merits arguments.

Just read that. Read that! It's amazing that the judge didn't have Trump's lawyers dragged out of the courtroom in shackles.

I mock Trump left and right for not paying people, which has led to this: a "lawsuit" so ridiculously poor I state without exaggeration I could have done a better job than this.

- - - Updated - - -

You know it's bad for the GOP when the National Review is scared. I'll spare you the second wall of text, but basically, by the DOJ saying "we need to read these and we need to read them right now" they were basically announcing, under oath, "We are forming a case against Donald Trump, and the urgency is because he did something illegally stupid."

- - - Updated - - -

MMO-C's third least favorite lawyer, former Trump lawyer Ty Cobb, who--

"Wait, wasn't he the guy with the mustache?"

No...okay well yes, it's incredible, but he was last seen walking away from representing Trump in the Mueller investigation, quitting in disgust because Trump refused to do anything reasonable.

And now, he's giving interviews on CBS News that Trump is in trouble because he refused to do anything reasonable.

Ty Cobb, who was a White House lawyer during former President Donald Trump's administration, suspects the Justice Department investigation into whether Trump mishandled White House documents — some of them highly classified — is really about a broader inquiry into potential crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

"It is about the bigger picture, the Jan. 6 issues, the fake electors, the whole scam with regard to the 'big lie' and the attempts to…cling to the presidency in a desperate fashion," Cobb said on this week's episode of "The Takeout" podcast.

A clue for Cobb, a former federal prosecutor, was the scope of the warrant authorized to search Trump's Mar-a-Lago compound.

"The search warrant is unusually large and broad," Cobb told CBS chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett. "It's very, very comprehensive in terms of the types of documents that the government could take."

"For example, you can take any box that has a document. You can take any box adjacent to a box that has it," he said. "Those are pretty broad parameters."

Cobb said he does not believe the documents investigation is the biggest threat.

"I think Trump is in serious legal water, not so much because of the search, but because of the obstructive activity he took in connection with the Jan. 6 proceeding," Cobb said. "I think that and the attempts to interfere in the election count in Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania and perhaps Michigan. That was the first time in American history that a president unconstitutionally attempted to remain in power illegally."

Cobb also thinks that Trump's actions around the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol could lead him to be barred from running for the presidency again.

"There is a simple way to disqualify President Trump," Cobb said. "He clearly violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution's Article III when he gave aid and comfort and three hours of inaction with regard to what was happening on the grounds of the Capitol. That clearly gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists."

"Okay, that's bad. But at least he's treating Trump with the respect he des--"

"I believe Trump to be a deeply wounded narcissist, and he is often incapable of acting other than in his perceived self-interest or for revenge," Cobb said. "I think those are the two compelling instincts that guide his actions."

And remember, this was someone Trump hired on purpose. Quit within a year because Trump is, well, basically insane.

[Edge-]

https://www.axios.com/2022/09/08/tru...areholder-vote
@Breccia

Did you already cover yesterday's Cybertrump event where DWAC again failed to get the votes for a one year extension on the merger?

Truth Social says it currently has enough cash to maintain options through April 2023, and that it soon plans to begin generating revenue via advertising.

But...do they? I hear they owe a few million to the company hosting the site. Because as a reminder -

"In any event, I don't need financing. I'm really rich. Private company anyone???"

Trump, on how he doesn't actually need the money he desperately wants because he claims to have a lot more that he either doesn't have, or won't spend. Trump, as with many rich people, hates actually paying for anything and is happy to let others pay, especially those with less money than him, whenever possible.

[Breccia]

Did you already cover yesterday's Cybertrump event where DWAC again failed to get the votes for a one year extension on the merger?

They are doing some crazy shit in those meetings. I believe they didn't have a quorum, then pushed back to October, which in turn should mean they had to bypass their deadline and DWAC owes themselves money now? In any event, their stock price dropped back down to the mid-$23 and is likely staying there till something interesting happens.

We'll see what happens, but, I see no reasonable way Trump is getting his billion dollars. And I find it highly fitting that the thing that got CyberTrump 2077 fame in the first place -- Trump being "forced" there to continue his ranting about the election he fairly and legally lost -- is what's hurting it now, because nobody wants to sign a contract with a dude in an orange jumpsuit and leg shackles.

[Gorsameth]

No one wants a twitter ripoff built on Trump posted there, that doesn't actually have Trump posting.

[Breccia]

No one wants a twitter ripoff built on Trump posted there, that doesn't actually have Trump posting.

To his minimal credit, he did start going off on rants again eventually. But a lot of the site's problems can be answered with, well, exactly what you said. CyberTrump 2077 was a bad investment when Trump wasn't on it, and now, he's only on it because he personally is a bad investment. He could easily have spiked the price months ago and sold off.

[Edge-]

To his minimal credit, he did start going off on rants again eventually. But a lot of the site's problems can be answered with, well, exactly what you said. CyberTrump 2077 was a bad investment when Trump wasn't on it, and now, he's only on it because he personally is a bad investment. He could easily have spiked the price months ago and sold off.

I don't want to undersell the importance of that platform for his ego, though. It matters a lot that he's getting likes and "retruths" or whatever it's called. It's a way for him to more easily projectile vomit out some stupid shit without needing to go through the hassle of posting/sending out and official communication from the 45th POTUS.

It's like back in the old days when he could just grab whoever's phone was near him, demand they log into his twitter account, and then narrate some bullshit for them to send out on his behalf. Except now he has a lot more than 240 characters to play with so his "truths" can get pretty wordy!

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...ndal-rcna47029

Susan Collins, is finally not very concerned -

HuffPost asked several senators this week whether they would take secret documents home with them. The Maine Republican responded that she didn’t “have the facilities to do so nor the authority” to keep top secret information at home, but added, “That’s different from a president. I don’t have any authority to deem something classified or unclassified.”

Or...is she?

“Of course I’m concerned there are classified documents,” said Collins, though she added there is much that remains unknown. “All we have are unsubstantiated leaks and that’s why I strongly support the request of the chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee for us to have full access to all the documents that were retrieved,” Collins said.

I don't think they have clearance to see many of those documents...

Also, we have more than unsubstantiated leaks. We have the FBI search warrant, partially redacted, as well as lists of general items taken, including classified and SCI documents.

Just a reminder: Susan Collins is a mostly spineless Karen who just narcs on local kids who make chalk drawings on the sidewalk.

[Breccia]

I don't think they have clearance to see many of those documents.

I'm disappointed. The Party of Trump has routinely demanded to see the evidence against Trump, so they could warn him about it. Meanwhile, when Trump hid evidence (did we ever get that Ukraine call log?) they backed his every play.

I thought Collins was better than that.

[CastletonSnob]

A survey on PBS Newshour said that 61% of Republicans say Trump should run in 2024, even if he's charged with a crime.

So, Democrats need to forget about trying to convert non-MAGA Republicans to the Democratic Party. The majority of Republicans will support Trump, no matter what.

[Breccia]

A survey on PBS Newshour said that 61% of Republicans say Trump should run in 2024, even if he's charged with a crime.

The hypocrisy knows no bounds. I'm willing to bet that, if you asked that 61%, a lot of them would say "But it was a Fake Crime, a partisan WITCH HUNT, he didn't do anything wrong".

And Clinton...

"Oh she's guilty, hang her next to Mike Pence. She deserves it for Benghazi and Katrina!"

[Gelannerai]

I'm disappointed. The Party of Trump has routinely demanded to see the evidence against Trump, so they could warn him about it. Meanwhile, when Trump hid evidence (did we ever get that Ukraine call log?) they backed his every play.

I thought Collins was better than that.

Oh absolutely not. Best-case scenario is that she’s just a moron that acts as a mouthpiece for her speech-writers, who in turn have her pretend to be a more moderate voice while still voting right alongside radical fascists in the GQP. Worst-case scenario is that she’s a lying snake that really is a radical fascist but pretends not to be so she doesn’t draw the ire of her constituency. Either is a really bad look.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/09/ty-c...stitution.html



Remember this mustachioed man? Ty Cobb, former Trump White House lawyer?

Asked about Trump’s claims that he actually won the 2020 election, Cobb said, “I believe former President Trump to be a deeply wounded narcissist, and he is often incapable of acting other than in his perceived self-interest or for revenge.”

[Breccia]

One update, one non-update-update.

1) I've personally posted that Trump's PAC is apparently facing a criminal investigation, for lying about the election that was over to get more funds...and doing nothing with them. Well, the GOP has him flanked. They're apparently getting tired of him taking all the Republican campaign funds and not giving them to people actually running.

The minority leader is advising Trump-backed candidates and senators with good relationships with the 45th president to prod him to transfer millions of dollars from his leadership PAC to super PACs supporting Trump’s favored candidates, according to two people familiar with McConnell’s entreaty. Trump has repeatedly trashed McConnell over the past 18 months, including calling for his ouster as GOP leader. But the two have a shared goal of turning the Senate red.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who frequently talks Senate politics with Trump, said that Trump’s PAC has “resources. A lot of Trump candidates need help, like Blake Masters. My argument would be: ‘If the people you endorsed do well, you do well.’”

Graham said he is planning to make a larger push with Trump closer to the election. But there’s plenty of urgency now. The McConnell-linked Senate Leadership Fund super PAC recently slashed $8 million in ads for Masters in Arizona, leaving a huge spending gulf.

One Republican senator, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation, doubted that Trump would loosen his purse strings even for his own candidates given the long-running tensions between him and Senate Republicans — a sentiment echoed in part by some operatives close to the former president.

“It’s not Trump’s job to elect a Senate majority,” said one Trump world adviser.

But others were more hopeful.

“In at least a couple of those races, there’s a really compelling argument for him to be involved. He’s got a huge wad of cash that could make a difference,” said Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), whom Trump once vowed to defeat.

Yeah, funny how the Republicans telling the truth about Trump have to hide who they are so they get the Trump voters. There should be a name for that.

Trump spending money now won't help him with the criminal investigation. But it is a solid parallel with what happened with Bannon, just on a larger scale. If Trump's PAC is shut down for not being a PAC, locking off the money from the Republican Party, well, what was that line? About being destroyed?

2) Hey, weren't Trump and the DOJ supposed to give the court their nominations for "special master" by now? The DOJ appealed, I get that, but where's Trump's list?

[Kaleredar]

One update, one non-update-update.

1) I've personally posted that Trump's PAC is apparently facing a criminal investigation, for lying about the election that was over to get more funds...and doing nothing with them. Well, the GOP has him flanked. They're apparently getting tired of him taking all the Republican campaign funds and not giving them to people actually running.



Yeah, funny how the Republicans telling the truth about Trump have to hide who they are so they get the Trump voters. There should be a name for that.

Trump spending money now won't help him with the criminal investigation. But it is a solid parallel with what happened with Bannon, just on a larger scale. If Trump's PAC is shut down for not being a PAC, locking off the money from the Republican Party, well, what was that line? About being destroyed?

2) Hey, weren't Trump and the DOJ supposed to give the court their nominations for "special master" by now? The DOJ appealed, I get that, but where's Trump's list?

Why, if he never submits a list, they can never select a judge that they ruled was needed, so therefore he can never be taken to to trial!

[Edge-]

but where's Trump's list?

"List of Special Master candidates for review:

1. Donald John Trump

End of list"

[Poopymonster]

"List of Special Master candidates for review:

1. Donald John Trump

End of list"

DoJ list:
Barrack Obama
Hillary Clinton
William Clinton
Robert Mueller

Cue the sound of Trump filling his diaper.

[tehdang]

Oh my God, why do you keep bringing up that you literally asked to see men sucking each other's dicks?

Because it was in response to somebody that said it literally happened. Take it up with him.

This talking point literally doesn't exist in reality, dude. Current POTUS determines privilege, and has access to documents from prior administrations.

That's yet to be tested in court, which means the DoJ was wrong to fail to ignore it in taint team procedures. If you'd get over denying clear errors in process, you might arrive at something good. Like, this may be the case when a high court changes the precedent which binds the DoJ (and binds the judge in the lower court, for that matter).

Wrong. The ONLY PERSON that can claim executive privilege ANYWHERE, doesn't matter if it is a local lawsuit or the Attorney General personally putting the cuffs on Trump, is the CURRENT FUCKING PRESIDENT. The SCOTUS decision specifically stated that.

I've cited you the court case that says this is wrong. You'll have to justify to yourself how Nixon left office, but was still the current president when the Supreme Court ruled on executive privilege lingering after the term. Shrodinger's president: Nixon is out of office, but still in office at the same time according to postman1782.

What I'm asking you, specifically, is what does that line from Nixon vs GSA mean in this case? Using the precedent case US vs Nixon as well. How are you saying this applied to the situation with the documents seized from MaL by the FBI?

(and apologies if you've summarized your position like this previously, and I missed it - you can just link the post and I'll find it from there)

Just re-read my past posts. Specifically the first posts. Read the judge's order. I linked it in past notes. And read Nixon vs GSA. There are multiple lines in the case. I doubt you can fully read the judge's order and Nixon vs GSA and still be confused as to my point. Well, actually, just tell me if you understand Cannon's ruling and why she cited it to make her point. I doubt you can, in good faith, feel you understand her but misunderstand me. Unless you need some slow and long explanation of taint teams and the purpose of screening for documents protected by privilege.

Problem is, this isn't like Attorney Client privilege. Executive Privilege is only about communications between the sitting president and others he talks to so that he can do his job. However, it is only the current sitting president that can assert that, not previous ones.

Nixon was out of office when the GSA came calling. Nixon asserted executive privilege, and the court ruled on it, in the process writing precedent that presidents out of office do not automatically surrender all vestiges of privilege. Nixon vs GSA. It should make intuitive sense too; advisors would be wary of giving frank advice to the president--that might not be phrased as diplomatically and politically-correct for public consumption--if it could be seized and dispersed by a rival admin the second he/she left office.

[Breccia]

Team Trump and the DOJ pool their "special master" requests into a single eight-page filing.

There were no survivors.

The Justice Department proposed two former Federal District Court judges for the position: Barbara S. Jones, a Clinton appointee to the Southern District of New York who performed a similar role in cases involving two personal lawyers of Mr. Trump, Michael S. Cohen in 2017 and Rudolph W. Giuliani in 2021; and Thomas B. Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee who retired from the bench in the District of Columbia in 2020.

Mr. Trump’s legal team countered with two suggestions of its own: a retired Federal District Court judge, Raymond J. Dearie, a Reagan appointee who sat in the Eastern District of New York and once served as the top federal prosecutor there; and Paul Huck Jr., a former deputy attorney general in Florida who also served as general counsel to Charlie Crist, who was its Republican governor at the time.

Mr. Huck is married to Judge Barbara Lagoa, whom Mr. Trump appointed to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, which oversees federal courts in Florida. Such an appointment would appear to create a conflict of interest that could require Judge Lagoa to recuse herself from litigation involving the case.

"Okay, nothing too odd there, but it doesn't sound so b--"

The department also said Mr. Trump should pay for the master since he had asked for it; Mr. Trump’s team proposed that taxpayers split the cost.

"Ah, of course. Well if that's the w--"

The two sides also clashed substantially over the duties of the special master. Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that the arbiter should look at all the documents seized in the search and filter out anything potentially subject to attorney-client or executive privilege.

By contrast, the government argued that the master should look only at unclassified documents and should not adjudicate whether anything was subject to executive privilege.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers are also asking the court to exclude National Archives officials from the process of reviewing the materials; the department believes their involvement is essential.

"There it is."

Yeah, so, there's a few things to take away here.

1) The DOJ is trolling the fuck out of Trump with those choices. One choice that has already ruled against Team Trump, and one conservative-appointed that seems like a gimme...unless you remember that W and his allies are classic Republicans and owe Trump nothing.

2) The DOJ says the "special master" should only look at unclassified records. I'm going to guess here, but my guess is only Barbara Jones, the Clinton nominee, has a security clearance anywhere near this shit. Meaning, the DOJ seem to have a good point on paper. What it really is, is a trap to get Trump to admit, under oath, that he didn't actually declassify anything. If Trump can't find any evidence he did, then that restricts the options, or worse for Trump, means that the "special master" might not be able to read much of anything at all. Trump's lawyers tried to say "just because the folder says classified doesn't mean it wasn't declassified later" but have yet to say, under oath, that the material actually was declassified.

Why? Bobb. Trump screwed her over, possibly ending her career, by tricking her into saying "that's everything Trump has" on a federal form, when that was false. Whoever Trump still has left on his "payroll" won't dare to say "the documents were declassified" under oath, because even if Trump told them, they no longer believe him. Or at least, not enough to risk their career based on a fact they can't check themselves.

Which means, only Trump can answer that question. I don't think he will. I think he knows he didn't do it while in the WH and is a giant orange pussy who knows his many lies will get him on perjury within seconds. Until Trump is willing to say so under oath, the material should be considered classified (or higher) because NARA and the documents themselves say they are. And the judge has got to know the thin ice she's already on won't support her declaring them all declassified.

3) Trump suggesting the taxpayers foot half the bill is yet more admission he's broke.

4) And the highly-expected clash, with neither side willing to give up any ground (well, each made a "special master" choice that doesn't seem 100% toxic on paper) could push the judge to just take the easy route and grant the DOJ's appeal. Simply put, the DOJ has a strong upper hand here. If the judge and/or Trump don't make major concessions, they'll just appeal, and based on pretty much every expert we've heard, will probably win.

And yet again, I still don't know what this "special master" request is expected to do. If it's lawyer-client, well yeah, give that back. I suspect it's already separated and ready to return, because it means nothing to the FBI. If it's Executive Privilege, Trump still doesn't get it back, and it still remains evidence that Trump stole/hid government property, even if it doesn't get to the Jan 6th investigation(s).

- - - Updated - - -

Because it was--

Dude. Drop the topic of man-on-man sex. You won't see it here. Stop asking.

Nixon vs GSA

You keep posting this as if it's helpful. Nixon lost that case 7 to 2.

Moreover, adequate justifications are shown for this limited intrusion into executive confidentiality comparable to those held to justify in in camera inspection of the District Court sustained in United States v. Nixon, supra. Congress' purposes in enacting the Act are exhaustively treated in the opinion of the District Court. The legislative history of the Act clearly reveals that, among other purposes, Congress acted to establish regular procedures to deal with the perceived need to preserve the materials for legitimate historical and governmental purposes. An incumbent President should not be dependent on happenstance or the whim of a prior President when he seeks access to records of past decisions that define or channel current decisions that define or channel current governmental obligations. Nor should the American people's ability to reconstruct and come to terms which their history be truncated by an analysis of Presidential privilege that focuses only on the needs of the present. Congress can legitimately act to rectify the hit-or-miss approach that has characterized past attempts to protect these substantial interests by entrusting the materials to expert handling by trusted and disinterested professionals.

There is no precedent that Trump, no longer in the WH, can cite new privilege. At best, things he privileged before will remain so, but as I just finished posting, your man Trump is too much of a coward to say under oath he did that -- and it's been months, and he had plenty of chances.

Your citation is wrong. Your interpretation is wrong. Only the current President, that's Biden by the way, can establish new Executive Privilege. Almost everyone on these forums has pointed that out several times, and you insist on using a ruling that is the opposite of your case.

Give it up. It's over.

[postman1782]

I've cited you the court case that says this is wrong. You'll have to justify to yourself how Nixon left office, but was still the current president when the Supreme Court ruled on executive privilege lingering after the term. Shrodinger's president: Nixon is out of office, but still in office at the same time according to postman1782.

No, you didn't, Nixon lost the case you are citing. And the CURRENT Supreme court ruled on Trump not having executive privilege in literally January of this year. And again, everything he stole, doesn't belong to him, it belongs to the the US Government.

Again, literally nothing you have said is fucking true.