1. #80301
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,963
    No ruling yet on "special master". Trump's lawyers called it a routine action, while the government pointed out it was literally unprecedented.

    With no ruling, and no order to the contrary, the DOJ may continue to review the evidence.

    Team Trump has yet to provide any evidence anything was declassified, and quite the contrary, is continuing to say the material is covered by Executive Privilege. In fact, they continued to push that the "special master" should be looking for such. Which, um, would be pointless since that still means the DOJ gets them back.

    I guess tonight's going to be quiet. Well, except for Trump raging that Biden is on TV calling him a fascist.

    - - - Updated - - -

    House Panel wants to hear from Newt Gingrich. He was caught emailing Mark Meadows about fake electors, even suggesting courses of action to help Trupm steal the election he lost.

  2. #80302
    Quote Originally Posted by shimerra View Post
    An unbiased reader that can think critically doubts your ability to zip your pants without outside help based on your posts.
    I've certainly seen the intellectual analogue to your argument bandied about in this thread. If I had one suggestion for you, it would be to change your post into a question, like "Readers doubt you can zip up your pants by yourself. Can you? Yes or No? It's an easy question" and follow that up with "Stop dodging my question!"
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  3. #80303
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,963
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I've certainly seen--
    Still no response to that article I posted? Because I think you would give your argument some weight...any...if you tried constructively dealing with the But Her Emails you personally raised with anything other than handwaving and refusing to answer posters who ask you direct questions.

  4. #80304
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I've certainly seen the intellectual analogue to your argument bandied about in this thread. If I had one suggestion for you, it would be to change your post into a question, like "Readers doubt you can zip up your pants by yourself. Can you? Yes or No? It's an easy question" and follow that up with "Stop dodging my question!"
    You get shit on daily, and you think you are winning? Yeah, no thanks.

  5. #80305
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I've certainly seen the intellectual analogue to your argument bandied about in this thread. If I had one suggestion for you, it would be to change your post into a question, like "Readers doubt you can zip up your pants by yourself. Can you? Yes or No? It's an easy question" and follow that up with "Stop dodging my question!"
    Admitting your cowardice and lack of intellectual capabilities, a good first step you made here. Though something tells me you were trying to be clever and didn't actually realize what you actually wrote here.

  6. #80306
    "With many world leaders, Mr. Trump … was fascinated by what the CIA had learned about his international counterparts’ supposed extramarital affairs—not because he was going to confront them with the information, … but rather because he found it titillating."

    From a NYT, Maggie Haberman article via George Conway tweet.

    Yep. Don't doubt it one bit. Trump is such a simple minded idiot that he loved the spiciness of it all. The Soap Opera. I posted before about Kid Rock on Tucker Carlson questioning if he should be seeing these documents Trump was showing him at Mara.

    I believe Trump's best defense would have been "I just wanted to show people some cool stuff".
    Democrats are the best! I will never ever question a Democrat again. I LOVE the Democrats!

  7. #80307
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I've certainly seen the intellectual analogue to your argument bandied about in this thread. If I had one suggestion for you, it would be to change your post into a question, like "Readers doubt you can zip up your pants by yourself. Can you? Yes or No? It's an easy question" and follow that up with "Stop dodging my question!"
    Perhaps the reason you see the same response is because you keep giving the same responses repeatedly. If you actually told the truth and stopped lying you'd get other responses.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  8. #80308
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
    "With many world leaders, Mr. Trump … was fascinated by what the CIA had learned about his international counterparts’ supposed extramarital affairs—not because he was going to confront them with the information, … but rather because he found it titillating."

    From a NYT, Maggie Haberman article via George Conway tweet.

    Yep. Don't doubt it one bit. Trump is such a simple minded idiot that he loved the spiciness of it all. The Soap Opera. I posted before about Kid Rock on Tucker Carlson questioning if he should be seeing these documents Trump was showing him at Mara.

    I believe Trump's best defense would have been "I just wanted to show people some cool stuff".
    It's funny that even someone like Kid Rock, not entire a pillar of intellectual prowess, would realize that perhaps even this was too far.

    Also, some of those SAP/SAC documents, are a felony to even look at. Showing them is also a felony (Trump showing Kid Rock). That little bit of Faux News insight could cost Trump more jail time.

    However, I would bet that Garland, if he's actually going to prosecute, is going to go for 3-5 of the easiest most objective charges to indict Trump. Don't complicate it, get Trump on several felonies, and march him into jail.

  9. #80309
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,963
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    It's funny that even someone like Kid Rock, not entire a pillar of intellectual prowess, would realize that perhaps even this was too far.

    Also, some of those SAP/SAC documents, are a felony to even look at. Showing them is also a felony (Trump showing Kid Rock). That little bit of Faux News insight could cost Trump more jail time.

    However, I would bet that Garland, if he's actually going to prosecute, is going to go for 3-5 of the easiest most objective charges to indict Trump. Don't complicate it, get Trump on several felonies, and march him into jail.
    Pfft. You sound just like FOX News contributor Andrew Napolitano. Wait, what?

    Mr. Trump assumed that the agents were looking for classified top-secret materials that they’d allege he criminally possessed. His assumptions were apparently based on his gut instinct and not on a sophisticated analysis of the law. Hence, his public boast that he declassified all the formerly classified documents he took with him.

    Unbeknownst to him, the feds had anticipated such a defense and are not preparing to indict him for possessing classified materials, even though he did possess hundreds of voluntarily surrendered materials marked “top secret.” It is irrelevant if the documents were declassified, as the feds will charge crimes that do not require proof of classification. They told the federal judge who signed the search warrant that Mr. Trump still had national defense information (NDI) in his home. It appears they were correct.

    Yet, misreading and underestimating the feds, Mr. Trump actually did them a favor. One of the elements that they must prove for any of the three crimes is that Mr. Trump knew that he had the documents. The favor he did was admit to that when he boasted that they were no longer classified. He committed a mortal sin in the criminal defense world by denying something for which he had not been accused.
    Oh, and by the way:

    In a monumental irony, both Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks journalist who exposed American war crimes during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency employee who exposed criminal mass government surveillance upon the American public, stand charged with the very same crimes that are likely to be brought against Mr. Trump. On both Mr. Assange and Mr. Snowden, Mr. Trump argued that they should be executed. Fortunately for all three, these statutes do not provide for capital punishment.
    Here's a link to a one of the events.

  10. #80310
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Pfft. You sound just like FOX News contributor Andrew Napolitano. Wait, what?
    Mr. Trump assumed that the agents were looking for classified top-secret materials that they’d allege he criminally possessed. His assumptions were apparently based on his gut instinct and not on a sophisticated analysis of the law. Hence, his public boast that he declassified all the formerly classified documents he took with him.

    Unbeknownst to him, the feds had anticipated such a defense and are not preparing to indict him for possessing classified materials, even though he did possess hundreds of voluntarily surrendered materials marked “top secret.” It is irrelevant if the documents were declassified, as the feds will charge crimes that do not require proof of classification. They told the federal judge who signed the search warrant that Mr. Trump still had national defense information (NDI) in his home. It appears they were correct.

    Yet, misreading and underestimating the feds, Mr. Trump actually did them a favor. One of the elements that they must prove for any of the three crimes is that Mr. Trump knew that he had the documents. The favor he did was admit to that when he boasted that they were no longer classified. He committed a mortal sin in the criminal defense world by denying something for which he had not been accused.
    This is starting to look like it might actually happen.

  11. #80311
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,963
    Kushner, in public, says he doesn't want to go back to the WH.

    "No, the answer's really that right now my mind is really enjoying the private sector," Trump's son-in-law and former senior advisor said. "I don't believe that people should be career political people."

    He dodged questions about what his response would be if asked personally, saying that Trump now has "so many qualified people who are around, who are in the administration," compared to when he first entered the White House.

    Kushner said: "My hope would be that with some of those great people, they'll be able to play roles and I'll be able to support them in any way possible."

  12. #80312
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,100
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    You get shit on daily, and you think you are winning? Yeah, no thanks.
    The Wimp Lo training in martial arts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  13. #80313
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopymonster View Post
    The Wimp Lo training in martial arts.
    I prefer Ed Gruberman myself.

    Two quick articles:

    1) Newsweek lays out the case against Trump's lawyer Bobb, namely, the one who told the FBI she did a dilligent search and found no classified info. The case is "she can just blame Trump".

    Speaking to Newsweek, Neama Rahmani, a trial lawyer and a former federal prosecutor, highlighted the ways in which Trump's custodian of records Christina Bobb may be criminally investigated as part of the federal probe into the former president's apparent mishandling of sensitive materials.

    Should Bobb face an investigation, Rahmani suggested that the lawyer may be able to argue that she was merely going off what Trump was saying regarding the classified documents in Mar-a-Lago in order to protect herself from prosecution.

    "In response to grand jury subpoenas, Trump's lawyers said they provided everything. They didn't. That is making a false statement to a federal officer. When FBI agents were executing the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, Trump's lawyers specifically asked agents not to search inside a storage room. That is obstruction of justice," Rahmani told Newsweek.

    "This is very damaging to both Trump and his lawyer, Christina Bobb. It certainly seems as though a crime has been committed. But, just because a crime has been committed doesn't mean someone will be charged," he continued.

    "Bobb can't say too much because of attorney-client privilege, but she may decide to use the former president as a shield. Her best defense, in that case, would be to claim that she assumed what Trump told her, that nothing else was present at Mar-a-Lago, was true."
    We've talked about this before. It's possible Bobb knew Trump was lying and possible she was acting on his orders to lie to the FBi -- that's conspiracy of course, and a game over for a lawyer. Hopefully for her, she either gave him credit he wasn't due or actually believed him. But if she's charged, which seems possible considering she says she looked and she'd know where the storeroom was and most of it was there, for her to admit, under oath, Trump told her there was nothing else, that would be evidence later used against Trump.

    I hope.

    2) Karl Rove tells FOX News that--

    *ding*

    Oh, wow, I got so many FOX News points I leveled up. Let's see...+5% post length? Nah, I have enough of that. I'll take "reduce the cooldown of Posting The Entire Thing by 30 minutes".

    Republican Karl Rove on Wednesday forced a Fox News host to face the fact that Donald Trump took documents that didn't belong to him.

    Responding to the latest news, Fox News host Martha MacCallum cited Trump's talking point that the documents seized by the FBI were his and further claimed that he declassified what he took.

    "The Trump side has their lawyers and their feelings about what was rightfully his and able to take," MacCallum said.

    Rove interrupted: "Well, let's just be clear on this, none of these government documents are his to have taken. I agree with the deputy director, who said that a lot of the former president's problems are of his own creation. You can't — under the Presidential Records Act of 1978 you cannot take original documents with you when you leave the White House. When there is the president of the United States or any of his aides, you know — that's forbidden under the law."

    He continued saying that there are no criminal penalties for violating the PRA, but Trump has caused more problems by potentially violating other laws outside of the PRA.

    "But why the former president packed up 20 nearly 30 some-odd boxes of material when he had no right to do so," Rove continued. "And that's what the government asserts in this filing that he — the former president asked for the return of the documents because, as he said in his filing, they were created in his administration. And the response from the government was, that's evidence that they aren't his if they were developed in the White House during his time of presidency under the Presidential Records Act. They belong to the government and not to him!"
    This is a lot of classic Republicans being done with Trump's bullshit excuses.

    - - - Post without Classified Marking - - -

    We have a (partial?) list of items the FBI took back from Trump.

    So, the good news for Trump, some of it was empty folders. Which...okay, but why, tho? I'm guessing owning an empty folder that has official US Top Secret on it isn't itself really a crime, but why have them? Was he playing Pretty Princess Dress Up? Selling them on eBay? Does he need them to get hard anymore?

    The bad news is...everything else. In his office were three documents marked confidential, 17 documents marked secret, and seven documents marked top secret. Other items include 21 SCI documents thrown into a box in the storage room with magazine clippings. One box had three top secret documents and eighteen-hundred forty-one government photographs. I assume they were just Trump posing with dictators, or posing at an empty desk with a pen and blank piece of paper.

    This listing immediately destroys one of Trump's defenses: why did they take so much stuff? Well, when you hide top secret documents under eighteen hundred photographs, no I'm not making that up, you have to expect that shit's going to be taken all at the same time. The FBI isn't playing hide and seek on your time, they have shit to do. Also, how did Trump and/or his lawyers miss 18 boxes filled with even empty folders labeled Top Secret or higher?

    "Maybe Bobb looked inside, saw they were empty?"

    Then (a) how did she miss the filled ones, and (b) OH MY GOD WHO LOOKS INSIDE A TOP SECRET FOLDER?

    I do look forward to the "most of the stuff wasn't classified" defense. I'll rank it up there with "Your Honor, most of the bullets I fired into the school missed the children." Plus, again, a lot of this stuff was government property, declassifying still not the issue.

    The list is titled "Exhibit A". Nice. There's easily enough stuff in here to have Trump convicted.
    Last edited by Breccia; 2022-09-02 at 12:32 PM.

  14. #80314
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    I prefer Ed Gruberman myself.

    Two quick articles:

    1) Newsweek lays out the case against Trump's lawyer Bobb, namely, the one who told the FBI she did a dilligent search and found no classified info. The case is "she can just blame Trump".



    We've talked about this before. It's possible Bobb knew Trump was lying and possible she was acting on his orders to lie to the FBi -- that's conspiracy of course, and a game over for a lawyer. Hopefully for her, she either gave him credit he wasn't due or actually believed him. But if she's charged, which seems possible considering she says she looked and she'd know where the storeroom was and most of it was there, for her to admit, under oath, Trump told her there was nothing else, that would be evidence later used against Trump.

    I hope.

    2) Karl Rove tells FOX News that--

    *ding*

    Oh, wow, I got so many FOX News points I leveled up. Let's see...+5% post length? Nah, I have enough of that. I'll take "reduce the cooldown of Posting The Entire Thing by 30 minutes".



    This is a lot of classic Republicans being done with Trump's bullshit excuses.

    - - - Post without Classified Marking - - -

    We have a (partial?) list of items the FBI took back from Trump.

    So, the good news for Trump, some of it was empty folders. Which...okay, but why, tho? I'm guessing owning an empty folder that has official US Top Secret on it isn't itself really a crime, but why have them? Was he playing Pretty Princess Dress Up? Selling them on eBay? Does he need them to get hard anymore?

    The bad news is...everything else. In his office were three documents marked confidential, 17 documents marked secret, and seven documents marked top secret. Other items include 21 SCI documents thrown into a box in the storage room with magazine clippings. One box had three top secret documents and eighteen-hundred forty-one government photographs. I assume they were just Trump posing with dictators, or posing at an empty desk with a pen and blank piece of paper.

    This listing immediately destroys one of Trump's defenses: why did they take so much stuff? Well, when you hide top secret documents under eighteen hundred photographs, no I'm not making that up, you have to expect that shit's going to be taken all at the same time. The FBI isn't playing hide and seek on your time, they have shit to do. Also, how did Trump and/or his lawyers miss 18 boxes filled with even empty folders labeled Top Secret or higher?

    "Maybe Bobb looked inside, saw they were empty?"

    Then (a) how did she miss the filled ones, and (b) OH MY GOD WHO LOOKS INSIDE A TOP SECRET FOLDER?

    I do look forward to the "most of the stuff wasn't classified" defense. I'll rank it up there with "Your Honor, most of the bullets I fired into the school missed the children." Plus, again, a lot of this stuff was government property, declassifying still not the issue.

    The list is titled "Exhibit A". Nice. There's easily enough stuff in here to have Trump convicted.
    There is a more chilling thought.
    What if those empty Top Secret folders were not empty to start with.

    How many documents has Trump passed on/sold that were in those now empty folders?
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  15. #80315
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    What if those empty Top Secret folders were not empty to start with.
    I don't...

    Um...

    Oh, fat orange fucking hell, you're right.

  16. #80316
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    I don't...

    Um...

    Oh, fat orange fucking hell, you're right.
    My first thought was actually that he'd already sold those documents.

  17. #80317
    Pandaren Monk masterhorus8's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    There is a more chilling thought.
    What if those empty Top Secret folders were not empty to start with.

    How many documents has Trump passed on/sold that were in those now empty folders?
    JFC... I hadn't even thought of that.
    9

  18. #80318
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    There is a more chilling thought.
    What if those empty Top Secret folders were not empty to start with.

    How many documents has Trump passed on/sold that were in those now empty folders?
    Well, the FBI should know what documents they expected to find, and whether or not they were supposed to be empty folders. If they weren't, and they are now, and the contents aren't just mixed into that box of love letters from Kim Jong Un, then he's absolutely fucked.

  19. #80319
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    Well, the FBI should know what documents they expected to find, and whether or not they were supposed to be empty folders. If they weren't, and they are now, and the contents aren't just mixed into that box of love letters from Kim Jong Un, then he's absolutely fucked.
    Do they actually know what specific documents are missing? I would imagine not, unless there is a complete inventory of all classified documents inside the WH and that inventory was kept up to date throughout the Trump administration



    They knew some stuff was gone. But probably not the exact details.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  20. #80320
    https://www.axios.com/local/phoenix/...-requests-info

    True the Vote refused multiple requests from the attorney general's office to provide evidence or data supporting the ballot-harvesting allegations it made in its debunked "2000 Mules" movie.

    Context: The nonprofit organization and conservative filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza caused a stir among supporters of the false claims surrounding the 2020 election.

    ...

    Details: The group claimed to have identified 243 "mules" who collected ballots in Maricopa and Yuma counties.

    Yes, but: The movie has been repeatedly debunked.

    ...

    State of play: According to email correspondence the AG's office provided to Axios, they made four requests to True the Vote for a hard drive and other supposed evidence that the group claimed it had.

    ...

    What they're saying: Asked if she put any stock in the group's allegations, Townsend said, "I don't know, because if they're not going to hand it over, then how do you know? And then that begs the question, what are we doing then? Why are we making the allegations in the first place?"
    I'm beginning to think this was all some partisan hit-job against our election systems and is making baseless claims without evidence or something!

    - - - Updated - - -

    https://thehill.com/policy/national-...the-world-nyt/

    So this is an older article from October 2021 but...I think it reads a bit different given the newly available information and context.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •