1. #80341
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    25,604
    Quote Originally Posted by ringpriest View Post
    I wonder if Trump is ignorant enough to think that taking the material out of its folder is how he "declassified" stuff. (Even if that's the case, mishandling classified information and NDI is one of the relatively rare legal cases where the defendant's state of mind doesn't matter, it's still a crime.)
    I don’t think any thought beyond “I’m the president, I can do whatever I want” crossed his mind at the time.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  2. #80342
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Lying to your lawyer is not perjury, nor a crime.
    Depends. If you lie to your lawyer, knowing they're going to make sworn statements or submit affidavits to a court based on those lies, it can absolutely be a crime. The lawyer is acting as your agent in that instance, and their representations are effectively the representations you're having them make. The language is, "...knowingly makes, uses or causes to be made or used...."
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  3. #80343
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Depends. If you lie to your lawyer, knowing they're going to make sworn statements or submit affidavits to a court based on those lies, it can absolutely be a crime. The lawyer is acting as your agent in that instance, and their representations are effectively the representations you're having them make. The language is, "...knowingly makes, uses or causes to be made or used...."
    I hope this is true. Simply put, I despise the idea that you can lie to your lawyer, your lawyer can present that lie to the court as if it was true, and neither of you have committed a crime. Like, if that's possible, why wouldn't everyone do that all the time?

  4. #80344
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    I hope this is true. Simply put, I despise the idea that you can lie to your lawyer, your lawyer can present that lie to the court as if it was true, and neither of you have committed a crime. Like, if that's possible, why wouldn't everyone do that all the time?
    Well, in this instance, the law is specifically about gov't payments and property (which would absolutely apply here). Doesn't extend beyond that. I don't know if there are other laws that cover that type of thing, which is why I tried to qualify it with "Depends."
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  5. #80345
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Well, in this instance
    Oh, I meant in general. There shouldn't be a loophole where lying to your lawyer to get a lie introduced without perjuring yourself works. If a lawyer on your payroll puts a lie into evidence on your behalf, it should be one of your heads on a plate. Figuratively.

  6. #80346
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Oh, I meant in general. There shouldn't be a loophole where lying to your lawyer to get a lie introduced without perjuring yourself works. If a lawyer on your payroll puts a lie into evidence on your behalf, it should be one of your heads on a plate. Figuratively.
    Ripster42 was pointing out one aspect, that while true, probably won't apply here (as he said). With filings, even if an attorney draws up the documents, if they are submitting sworn statements of their clients, the clients ultimately sign the affidavit. Attorneys can also submit documents in which they are laying out facts as they know them, without their clients signature - but the caveat there is "as they [the attorney's] know them", i.e., what their clients told them.

    Trump is in all kinds of trouble right now. Real, legitimate, can't be hand waved away by @tehdang trouble. I would not be surprised if we don't see indictments coming down shortly after the election (and, unfortunately, Garland waiting until after the election is prudent, smart, and incidentally helpful to the Democrats).

  7. #80347
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Ripster42 was pointing out one aspect, that while true, probably won't apply here (as he said). With filings, even if an attorney draws up the documents, if they are submitting sworn statements of their clients, the clients ultimately sign the affidavit. Attorneys can also submit documents in which they are laying out facts as they know them, without their clients signature - but the caveat there is "as they [the attorney's] know them", i.e., what their clients told them.

    Trump is in all kinds of trouble right now. Real, legitimate, can't be hand waved away by @tehdang trouble. I would not be surprised if we don't see indictments coming down shortly after the election (and, unfortunately, Garland waiting until after the election is prudent, smart, and incidentally helpful to the Democrats).
    The reason I said it would apply here is that the law I quoted was specifically about gov't property, which classified docs are, and he caused the lawyer to make those statements. He didn't sign the affidavit, nobby, or whatever her name is, did. The lawyer has a possible defense: blame it on trump. Trump doesn't have that defense. Which means the law, specifically about gov't property, specifically stating that causing false statements to be used or made is illegal, is applicable here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  8. #80348
    https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/f...r-147640901659

    MSNBC has a theory on the folders. Trump was hording them to use as decorations at his properties.

    I mean it's pretty dumb, but that would be one of the most benign reasons...

  9. #80349
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Trump was hording them to use as decorations at his properties.
    So, Pretty Princess Dress Up, then? Honestly the least harmful of the options we've discussed.

  10. #80350
    Fun little exercise. IF (and a big if) Trumps wins the Republican nomination for president again who do you think he will tap as his VP. Definitely NOT Pence. That bridge has been burned to the ground and pissed on.

    So what nutjob would Trump both want at his side but also not feel threatened by.
    "The customer is always right" is a nice way of saying "I will put up with your bullshit as long as you pay me"

  11. #80351
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Redwyrm View Post
    So what nutjob would Trump both want at his side but also not feel threatened by.
    John Barron?

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  12. #80352
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,962
    Barr went on FOX News again and, you know, at this point it's pretty clear FOX News is just flat-out gunning for Trump.

    "I can't think of a legitimate reason why they should have been — could be taken out of government, away from the government if they are classified," Barr, who served under Trump from 2019 to 2020, told Fox News. "I, frankly, am skeptical of the claim that [Trump] declassified everything."

    "I think it's highly improbable, and second, if in fact he sort of stood over scores of boxes, not really knowing what was in them and said 'I hereby declassify everything in here,' that would be such an abuse and that shows such recklessness, it's almost worse than taking the documents," he said.

    "Let me just say, I think the driver on this from the beginning was loads of classified information sitting in Mar-a-Lago," he noted. "People say this [raid] was unprecedented — well, it's also unprecedented for a president to take all this classified information and put them in a country club."

    "And how long is the government going to try to get that back? They jawboned for a year, they were deceived on the voluntary actions taken, they went and got a subpoena, they were deceived on that they feel, and the facts are starting to show that they were being jerked around," he added. "How long do they wait?"

    Barr also called Trump's demand for a special master a "red herring" and a "waste of time."
    "Odd that Barr put his political life on the line defending Trump from Mueller, but won't stand up over a few empty folders."

    Yeah, kind of a lot happened around Jan 6th, 2021, huh?

    That bolded is the new very popular and very reasonable defense against the rabid fanbase's "There's no prescedent for this, therefore, you can't arrest him". The reason we've never arrested Obama, Bush, no not that Bush the other Bush, Reagan, Ford, etc. is because none of them were so objectively criminals. Clinton was impeached but not arrested for perjury, but about a blowjob. Nixon got pardoned, but at least his attack on democracy itself didn't kill anyone. Trump is the exception because of Trump. He's the one who, in this context at least, stole a bunch of government documents of a variety of classified levels he never removed, Don't blame the cops for being arrested for that crime you committed.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Bannon asked for a new trial for his contempt of Congress conviction. For one, he claimed that the jury should have been told about his Executive Privilege, a defense he by law did not have and the judge forbade him from using. For two, he claimed the judge wasn't allowed to tell the jury the definition of the crime he committed. For three, he wanted the entire thing thrown out because he demanded random House members testify and they didn't -- I wonder how Graham feels about that last one.

    His arguments were summarily rejected on the grounds of "None of that was important, you were just clearly that guilty."

    Obviously Bannon will try to spin this as "the Deep Commie Librul Elite State is trying to railroad me" when the fact is simply that he was ordered to testify and didn't.

  13. #80353
    Herald of the Titans RaoBurning's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arizona, US
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Skjaldborg View Post
    What really might end up bringing this guy down is that he brought a piece of paper "home from work" and lied about having it. We might need to redefine "anticlimax" after this.
    I think the professionals call it "Edging." No relation to our local moderator, of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This is America. We always have warm dead bodies.
    if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

  14. #80354
    Pandaren Monk Ettan's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kekistan
    Posts
    1,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Redwyrm View Post
    Fun little exercise. IF (and a big if) Trumps wins the Republican nomination for president again who do you think he will tap as his VP. Definitely NOT Pence. That bridge has been burned to the ground and pissed on.

    So what nutjob would Trump both want at his side but also not feel threatened by.
    He wins the rep nomination if he runs. Its not close atall, amongst republicans he garners as much support as all the other contestants combined.
    Ofc he may still lose, but that is not realistic.

    As for vip its probably desantis, he already hinted at that.
    I agree Pence is out. And not for his hissyfit. Main reason being he is no longer useful, Pence was always a strategical pick.
    While now the religious nutter base is already secured for trump; he delivered them exactly what they wanted, roe/wade overturned.

    Anyway I think Ronald & Donald sounds lovely.

  15. #80355
    Quote Originally Posted by Ettan View Post
    He wins the rep nomination if he runs. Its not close atall, amongst republicans he garners as much support as all the other contestants combined.
    Ofc he may still lose, but that is not realistic.

    As for vip its probably desantis, he already hinted at that.
    I agree Pence is out. And not for his hissyfit. Main reason being he is no longer useful, Pence was always a strategical pick.
    While now the religious nutter base is already secured for trump; he delivered them exactly what they wanted, roe/wade overturned.

    Anyway I think Ronald & Donald sounds lovely.
    Guaranteed if he runs, he loses, no matter who is with him.

  16. #80356
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    Guaranteed if he runs, he loses, no matter who is with him.
    You think so? I’d like to believe that, but if these past 6 years have taught me anything it’s not to take this shit for granted…

    Besides, who else would they run? DeSantis is just Trump-lite…not exactly inspiring for the base.

  17. #80357
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    You think so? I’d like to believe that, but if these past 6 years have taught me anything it’s not to take this shit for granted…

    Besides, who else would they run? DeSantis is just Trump-lite…not exactly inspiring for the base.
    DeSantis is pretty popular with the base, in some polls I've seen even beating Trump. Of course he's at least as bad as Trump but somehow has an unwarranted patina of respectability, and supposedly, according to conventional wisdom, has "less baggage." We'll see about that last part, but I can't imagine Trump picking him as VP, either, out of jealousy and spite. I could see him picking Flynn, or anyone who's been sufficiently loyal, traitorous and dangerous to democracy, and Democrats utterly despise. As you note, Trump could win so god help us all.
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  18. #80358
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Levelfive View Post
    DeSantis is pretty popular with the base, in some polls I've seen even beating Trump. Of course he's at least as bad as Trump but somehow has an unwarranted patina of respectability, and supposedly, according to conventional wisdom, has "less baggage." We'll see about that last part, but I can't imagine Trump picking him as VP, either, out of jealousy and spite. I could see him picking Flynn, or anyone who's been sufficiently loyal, traitorous and dangerous to democracy, and Democrats utterly despise. As you note, Trump could win so god help us all.
    I can imagine the attack ads on DeSatan.
    "Hiya folks! Mickey Mouse here, I just wanted to tell you about..."
    I could see large companies with shiny tax breaks being wary of him. I mean, if he could try to fuck the House of Mouse, what companies would be safe?
    Granted, his attempt will end up being him fucking himself and the population of Florida, but visually it's a Very Bad Thing he did to Mickey.
    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.

  19. #80359
    Quote Originally Posted by Levelfive View Post
    DeSantis is pretty popular with the base, in some polls I've seen even beating Trump. Of course he's at least as bad as Trump but somehow has an unwarranted patina of respectability, and supposedly, according to conventional wisdom, has "less baggage." We'll see about that last part, but I can't imagine Trump picking him as VP, either, out of jealousy and spite. I could see him picking Flynn, or anyone who's been sufficiently loyal, traitorous and dangerous to democracy, and Democrats utterly despise. As you note, Trump could win so god help us all.
    Trump still has a very large lead over DeSantis with the base at least all the polls I have seen. Trump can definitely win in 2024 let's not forget republicans can now legally throw out votes because they feel like it and they have a supreme court that will rubber stamp the "winner".

  20. #80360
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,962
    We've seen various thoughts about why those folders were empty. Cohen, for example, thinks Trump split them up and has copies. Federal prosecuter Weissman, damn he's been making the rounds these days, said this:

    Two thoughts. So first thought, really revolves around those empty folders. Ever since we learned that there was a search warrant and learned that there were classified documents, what was in the back of everyone's mind was the fear that these didn't all stay at Mar-a-Lago, and was there any dissemination. That is the reason why government documents are supposed to stay with the government, classified documents are supposed to stay in a SCIF and top secret documents, more than that, are highly restricted in terms of who has access. And that is because of the concern that they get into the wrong hands.

    And when you see how many folders were empty, that is the thing that causes you to take a deep breath and really be concerned about what happened to them. It is very reason for this investigation and for the Department of Justice to be taking these actions. And the second thing that crossed my mind is we have learned a lot about Mar-a-Lago, that that is not the only place that the former president has a residence. And although he was given a grand jury subpoena that called for him to produce documents wherever located, that was not — we know that was not complied with.

    So the second thing in my head is, what steps are being taken to make sure that the government has scooped up everything, especially given the concern about these getting into the wrong hands? You can be sure that our adversaries are looking at this and having a field day, and figuring out how they might be able, if they haven't already, gained access to these documents.
    So both subjective experts like Cohen, and objective experts like Weissman, agree that the documents themselves might still be at large.

    Another somewhat reassuring option for the empty folders: they were separated by the FBI for cataloguing. Honestly, I hope it's one of the lesser ones, because while Trump is an intentionally ill-informed intentionally incompetent moron and sociopath, I'd rather he had not successfully sold government secrets to our enemies.

    But on the Pretty Princess Dress Up angle, there's this:



    Yeah, Trump made a bar themed about himself called 45 Wine and Whiskey...which he doesn't drink...and decorated it with various items. I'm still pretty sure the folder itself isn't classified, but it and some of those pictures are probably government property Trump stole.

    But since the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago, at least we know the stolen property is on its way back to--

    "That's not in Mar-a-Lago."

    ...what?

    "That's in Trump Tower."

    Wait, so, Trump had evidence of his crimes on display in multiple places? Is this probable cause to raid Trump's other properties?

    "It's possible those items were specially cleared, but again, we don't have any evidence either way. We know that you can't just think 'bigly declassified' and it works. There needs to be some kind of record. If Team Trump can prove that list of items, sitting there in public, are all his personal property and not a danger to democracy, that's one thing. But stealing from the WH is a crime, even when Trump does it."

Posting Permissions

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