Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

I have here a letter that NARA presented to Trump's lawyers May 10th. It cites Nixon vs GSA, multiple times, in their favor. Which means, not only can an ex-President no longer establish new privilege, but Trump knew that, because the government handed him a letter saying precisely that.

There is nothing in Nixon vs. GSA that will help Trump retroactively privilege these documents. That's directly and specifically blocked.

[postman1782]

I have here a letter that NARA presented to Trump's lawyers May 10th. It cites Nixon vs GSA, multiple times, in their favor. Which means, not only can an ex-President no longer establish new privilege, but Trump knew that, because the government handed him a letter saying precisely that.

There is nothing in Nixon vs. GSA that will help Trump retroactively privilege these documents. That's directly and specifically blocked.

There is also the case I cited from January when here lost executive privilege claims when it came to the January 6th committee.

[Breccia]

There is also the case I cited from January when here lost executive privilege claims when it came to the January 6th committee.

Indeed. It's reassuring to know most people are on board with the vast pile of precedent that Trump has nearly no defense from privilege here. Oh, and of course the crime exception. It's a lot more effective than cherry-picking on the bar of the Titanic.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, Trump has other problems.

Two Top Trump Political Aides Among Those Subpoenaed in Jan. 6 Case

Brian Jack, the final White House political director under Mr. Trump, and Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s top speechwriter and a senior policy adviser, were among more than a dozen people connected to the former president to receive subpoenas from a federal grand jury this week.

The subpoenas seek information in connection with the Save America political action committee and the plan to submit slates of electors pledged to Mr. Trump from swing states that were won by Joseph R. Biden Jr. in the 2020 election. Mr. Trump and his allies promoted the idea that competing slates of electors would justify blocking or delaying certification of Mr. Biden’s Electoral College win during a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.

Honestly, this could be about the Fake Electors or Trump illegally fundraising off his baseless/false claims of fraud. Both people named were close enough to Trump that it could be either or both.

[Ripster42]

Honestly, this could be about the Fake Electors or Trump illegally fundraising off his baseless/false claims of fraud. Both people named were close enough to Trump that it could be either or both.

IIRC, it could be about both. If you're going to drag people in front of a grand jury who have a lot of questions to answer about a lot of possible crimes, and the jury needs to hear from them all, there's no point in doing it before multiple juries if the facts of the cases related to those crimes share broad overlap. I don't know for sure though.

[Breccia]

there's no point in doing it before multiple juries if the facts of the cases related to those crimes share broad overlap

While I agree, the issue with Trump fundraising off blatant lies and keeping the money is under 24 hours old. The timing alone suggests two juries. I suppose the original investigation could have been expanded, but I don't think so.

[Gorsameth]

The National archive should not be involved in screening the seized documents to filter out those that legally belong to them or Trump.

That's an interesting take for sure.

[Xyonai]

Guess that little victory lap about Trump being 'granted' his Special Master was short lived if nothing substantial for him even comes from it.

Also fuckin' lol at him thinking he can get Tax payers to foot any part of the bill for it. You're a private citizen you fuckass, either use your own fucking money or leech off your gullible followers some more.

[Breccia]

leech off your gullible followers some more.

If he tries to use his PAC money for this while it's being investigated, you won't see me here for a day because I'll laugh myself into a hernia.

[Paranoid Android]

JUST IN: Trump and DOJ have proposed two candidates each to serve as special master over items seized in the Mar-a-Lago search.



Quick scouting report on Trump's guys.

Judge Raymond Dearie:

One recommended as special master by trump is former Judge Raymond Dearie. A good choice, but I couldn’t help thinking, why would trump choose him? I have nothing but a lot of “hmmmm..” thoughts. Dearie was head of the general crimes and criminal division from 1974-77 in the…1

…United States Attorneys office for the eastern district of New York, covering Queens (trumps home town and mobbed up) and brooklyn (mobbed up.) at a time when skyscrapers would made from steel or precast concrete, Trump was almost alone used ready mixed concrete, which he….2

Thread if you want to read.

Seems legit. Was a lawyer back in Queens when the Trumps had influence and the mob was heavily involved in building of skyscrapers. Trumps were never convicted but mafia people were. The part that gets messy is he was appointed US Attorney in Southern District under Giuliani (this is all in thread/link).

Not sure how this guy can look at classified info.

Paul Huck Jr. is more of a hack. He is a member of Federalist Society of course. Appointed by Bill Clinton.

His wife is Barbara Lagoa, appointed by Trump to 11th Circuit of Appeals, which hears this case btw next. Appointed before by DeSantis so that says it all. She was on the short list of SCOTUS appointees, passed over for Amy Barrett. Of course a federalist society member and handpicked. Also seems she is a religious zealot fanatic.

His wife is the wild card here.

[cubby]

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.

If you can't coherently and cohesively explain your point, or even link to where you, we can assume you don't have one.

Only one of us needs an explanation of what privilege is and how it pertains to this current situation, and it's the one of us who actually read both Nixon vs US and Nixon vs GSA in their entirety. I'll let you figure it out.

If you want to stay in the conversation, explain to us how those two cases apply to the situation at MaL, and your point specifically. Unless your point all along has been "some documents seized might have privilege". In which case nvm.

[Breccia]

Trump's lawyers say they will appeal the ruling where their Clinton lawsuit was lined up against the wall and executed.

Not only is it rife with erroneous applications of the law, but it also disregards the numerous independent governmental investigations which substantiate our claim that the defendants conspired to falsely implicate our client and undermine the 2016 Presidential election

Does anyone know what Trump is talking about?

[Kaleredar]

Trump's lawyers say they will appeal the ruling where their Clinton lawsuit was lined up against the wall and executed.



Does anyone know what Trump is talking about?

I think it's a simple matter of "we're in deep, deep, deep legal trouble, our public image is in a downward spiral... We need to give media outlets something else to focus on... quick, try and blame Clinton for something!"

[Endus]

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.

Like, this is a baffling argument. I can understand claiming executive privilege as an ex-President, in the form of "I can't talk about that because it was privileged material when I was President and you're not authorized to be informed about it."

But by the same token, the current President should have carte-blanche capacity to just flatly deny said claim of privilege. The ex-President shouldn't get any say or appeal or counterargument against that. None. It's a ridiculous argument; he's no longer President, and has no authorities whatsoever in these matters. The idea that a past President can deny the current President the ability to expose information is bananas. To the point that I'm convinced anyone making that argument is a charlatan who knows they're covering up malicious and illegal conduct.

[Breccia]

There's not much here we didn't already know. My favorite bit which I hadn't seen much before was "Trump is going to have a hard time claiming harm to his reputation from the announcement of the criminal investigation, when he's the one who announced it".

[Templar 331]

Like, this is a baffling argument. I can understand claiming executive privilege as an ex-President, in the form of "I can't talk about that because it was privileged material when I was President and you're not authorized to be informed about it."

But by the same token, the current President should have carte-blanche capacity to just flatly deny said claim of privilege. The ex-President shouldn't get any say or appeal or counterargument against that. None. It's a ridiculous argument; he's no longer President, and has no authorities whatsoever in these matters. The idea that a past President can deny the current President the ability to expose information is bananas. To the point that I'm convinced anyone making that argument is a charlatan who knows they're covering up malicious and illegal conduct.

I have a feeling that the people defending Trump with "executive privilege" are only using it because they believe he is still president but are just to scared to say out loud that they believe so. Or they do say it out loud. I'm sure there's an overlap of the groups out there.

[SoulForge]

I have a feeling that the people defending Trump with "executive privilege" are only using it because they believe he is still president but are just to scared to say out loud that they believe so. Or they do say it out loud. I'm sure there's an overlap of the groups out there.

The problem with their hypocrisy here is if he is still president that must mean all the things they blame on Biden is his fault. Don't tell them that. Their heads might explode.

[postman1782]

Trump's lawyers say they will appeal the ruling where their Clinton lawsuit was lined up against the wall and executed.



Does anyone know what Trump is talking about?

Didn't they dismiss it with prejudice?

[masterhorus8]

Didn't they dismiss it with prejudice?

Indeed they did!

[Poopymonster]

Didn't they dismiss it with prejudice?

Tonight's top story

Judge prejudiced again President Lord and Saviour Donald Jesuschristarisen Trump.

[postman1782]

Indeed they did!

So, he can't appeal it, because he doesn't know what prejudice means in legalese.

- - - Updated - - -

Tonight's top story

Of course, cuz you know, Trump humpers are morons.