Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Endus]

Also, this TheHill piece covers some old ground.

Remember this?

The DOJ's counterfiling seems to be aimed at this with pointy sticks.

Yep. It's pretty similar standards to here in Canada; I used to have a Top Secret security clearance (not special; I was doing surveys for Statistics Canada, we're not talking defense secrets here) and the markings are what matter. Something declassified has to be re-issued without the markings, particularly since sometimes material's partially declassified and things have to be separated out or blacked out.

Just having the folders and documents is a breach, and there really isn't any valid defense Trump can call on. He's just pulling every lie out of his ass in the desperate hope one of them gives him enough wiggle room to slip the noose. Which is doubtful.

[Breccia]

there really isn't any valid defense Trump can call on.

Key word is bolded. Trump's filings have been scattershot and sometimes self-contradictory. But in the end, "I willed them unclassified and/or privileged but nobody wrote anything down" is what he has. There might not be a limit on what he can do that do, but he still needs to actually do it. If there's no record of it being declassified, it's not declassified. Or, Trump could at least say "I told XXX but he didn't do it" and name someone specific who violated a WH order. It's been a very long time, he has not done that, suggesting it's not true.

Plus, as has been stated over and over, the classification status doesn't matter, and the PRA status doesn't matter, if they're WH property they're not Trump's. At best, privilege might shield the evidence of his crimes from the Jan 6th committe. It does not in any way affect "Trump stole WH property and we have proof of that".

[Muzjhath]

Considering my many posts on the subject, I'd like to hear from you in the affirmative or the negative that the DoJ should've treated the seized documents as being potentially protected by both executive privilege and attorney-client privilege. Alternatively, tell me if you think the DoJ was wrong and hasty to have disregarded such possible concerns considering Supreme Court precedent on the matter?

I'm afraid further questions on related topics will have to wait until someone in these parts acknowledges DoJ error. It's a rather simple point that has no real influence on future findings by a judge in court, or even a possible indictment by Trump. If every member is willing to die on the hill of no process mistake whatsoever, future answers may be futile for the same issue.

Any Executive Privileged Documents belong to the government, not an induvidual. The DoJ has 100% right to collect any and all of those. Any Attorney Client privileged documents that might have been mixed in along with them, why? Just shows more wrong-doing for a private induvidual keeping government property. But will be sorted out and send back. Any no-privileged things mixed in will be used as evidence of crimes.
As for Attorney-Client Privilege. As far as I'm aware a documment that lies in an office that's raided by warrant isn't privileged as such if it's left lying around and contains confessions of a crime. It's just that an attorney that learns of that from their client is bound to not speak of it, etc. So this is a very murky issue.

As for hasty? NARA and the DoJ have been asking to get this shit back for ages! This wasn't hasty. Had this been you who had kept these documments it'd have happened in less than a week, not fucking months.

So. There. Answered.
Now.

What are your stance on a Private Induvidual stealing Government secrets to keep in a golfclub storage room?

[Kaleredar]

Any Executive Privileged Documents belong to the government, not an induvidual. The DoJ has 100% right to collect any and all of those. Any Attorney Client privileged documents that might have been mixed in along with them, why? Just shows more wrong-doing for a private induvidual keeping government property. But will be sorted out and send back. Any no-privileged things mixed in will be used as evidence of crimes.
As for Attorney-Client Privilege. As far as I'm aware a documment that lies in an office that's raided by warrant isn't privileged as such if it's left lying around and contains confessions of a crime. It's just that an attorney that learns of that from their client is bound to not speak of it, etc. So this is a very murky issue.

As for hasty? NARA and the DoJ have been asking to get this shit back for ages! This wasn't hasty. Had this been you who had kept these documments it'd have happened in less than a week, not fucking months.

So. There. Answered.
Now.

What are your stance on a Private Induvidual stealing Government secrets to keep in a golfclub storage room?

I asked him that before.

His answer is that he’s very concerned about Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of her emails.

[SoulForge]

They failed to screen for a possible conflict. That is what this is about. Imagine if they'd taken pains to look at documents possibly subject to executive privilege, but ignored any such case for attorney-client privilege.

What documents do you imagine are covered by executive privilege? So far I've heard of no such documents taken during the raid.

AND how do you expect them to screen those? There are no markings associated with that. They aren't going to sit there and filter them through Trump. And thus far he hasn't raised that issue on his legal filings. At least not directly.

His answer is that he’s very concerned about Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of her emails.

Which is amazingly irrelevant for many reasons but here's the biggest. It wasn't a felony to mishandle classified documents during the email scandal. Trump signed a law into effect making it a felony because of that scandal. The irony of that brings great joy.

[Breccia]

Bloomberg has an article about the Trump-picked judge candidate for "special master" that the DOJ seems okay with.

1) He's served for 30 years and is retiring this year.

2) Reagan nominee.

3) As a district court judge, has the clearance necessary to review classified docouments.

4) This part:

“Trump may think a Republican judge will help him, but it’s a big mistake to think that because Dearie is a Republican he’ll shade in favor of Trump in this case,” said Daniel R. Alonso, a former federal prosecutor in Brooklyn who served as chief of the office’s criminal division from 2002 to 2005. “Dearie is not a good pick for Trump here, because he doesn’t tolerate nonsense.”

In all fairness, if Team Trump picked nothing but cultist judges, the DOJ would never have bitten, and Cannon might have just given up entirely. Problem was, they may have gone too far the other way. Classic Republicans back Trump because they want his votes. This judge doesn't need votes.

- - - Updated - - -

So if you were to look for Trump news in the last 24 hours, Google would show you this:



Yeah, that's FOX News desperately trying to find a needle of good news in a haystack of "Trump is a criminal". I already cited that headline, I don't get another point for citing it twice. It is worth noting that, apparently, they haven't said much since.

The problem is, that unsealing has more info. FOX News is holding desperately onto "Trump gave more stuff back at first than we thought" which, again, still irrelevant, he still kept stolen property, he still lied about it. And it is that Insider article that goes into the lies that the unsealing demonstrates.

New details from the affidavit used in the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago suggest that former President Donald Trump may have authorized a false statement his attorneys made to the DOJ, legal analysts said.

Experts zeroed in on a statement in the affidavit an attorney for Trump gave to investigators when they visited Mar-a-Lago to retrieve government records in June.

The details had previously been redacted, but were made public Tuesday on the order of a federal magistrate.

It is at this point where FOX News' spin and everyone else's pull apart, like the divergence in Fallout or the Cell Saga.

According to the newly-released information, one Trump attorney told the DOJ "he was not advised there were any records in any private office space or other locations in Mar-a-Lago."

A lawyer for Trump, Christina Bobb, also signed a statement saying that all of the information requested by the government had been handed back.

That information turned out to be false. When agents executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago on August 8, they found stashes of highly confidential records, including in Trump's offices, haphazardly kept alongside his personal items.

Analysts say the new evidence indicates Trump himself was likely behind the attorneys false claims.

"There's more of an implication in this newly released information that the former president did play a role in the provision of information about documents to whoever the lawyer who certified this information to the Justice Department," Former US attorney Joyce Vance said in an interview on MSNBC.

"There's this implication that documents were stored in storage areas and that there was nothing in personal offices and that seems like the sort of information that would have been very likely to come from the former president."

David Laufman, the former Former Chief of DOJ's Counterintelligence Section, also said that Trump had likely fed his attorneys false information.

"I think it's more likely than not that he lied to them knowing that they were going to transmit those lies to the government," he said on MSNBC.

On Twitter, legal analyst Ryan Goodman reached the same conclusion.

"Most likely points to ... being advised by his client, Donald Trump," he said of the attorney's claim to investigators.

Now I'm going to need @cubby on this one, because we've discussed this topic before. Namely, the infuriating topic of
a) you lie to your lawyer
b) your lawyer passes that false information forward to a signed legal form, because the lawyer has no requirement to verify the information
c) no crime is committed.

I despise this chain of events. Now, there are counterpoints, which I hope cubby can further explain. Supposedly, a lawyer is ethically supposed to bail on a client that lies to them and causes this chain of events to unfold. Bobb hasn't. If they conspired, that's all of them up for perjury and obstruction of justice. But to date, nobody's been cited with anything for what we now know is an objective lie: Team Trump telling the DOJ they'd returned everything, when they had not.

And no, I'm not accepting "they forgot they had 15 boxes of the stuff, and somehow they missed it in their search". Classified folders are pretty obvious, even empty ones.

The above-cited experts are suggesting that Trump lied to his legal team. Subpoena-ing someone's lawyers is a big step, but may be mandatory here. Bobb has already gotten her own lawyer, the rest might (cough) follow suit.

[cubby]

https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/...25291199217667
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/s...47934849634306

Lindell stopped at a Hardee's in Minnesota and apparently got surrounded by the FBI and confiscated his phone. And told him not to tell anyone, so of course he's telling everyone he possibly can.

Which he runs all his business on? And he doesn't have a computer? That doesn't seem like a smart business move to have your entire business empire running off a single point of failure.

But what do I know, I don't own a pillow-empire.

If the DoJ is doing that, and all those subpoenas, something is definitely moving forward. I know that's obvious, but with this case and the number of people involved, it's huge each time they take it up a notch.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep. It's pretty similar standards to here in Canada; I used to have a Top Secret security clearance (not special; I was doing surveys for Statistics Canada, we're not talking defense secrets here) and the markings are what matter. Something declassified has to be re-issued without the markings, particularly since sometimes material's partially declassified and things have to be separated out or blacked out.

Just having the folders and documents is a breach, and there really isn't any valid defense Trump can call on. He's just pulling every lie out of his ass in the desperate hope one of them gives him enough wiggle room to slip the noose. Which is doubtful.

This is the same here in the United States. Most people don't realize this point - any document marked with a classified designation is always classified. There is no handwaving it away. And declassifying something takes paperwork, and formal-ish process, as you would expect with important documents.

This is what will more than likely convict Trump. Objective violation of the Espionage Act.

[Edge-]

https://newrepublic.com/article/1677...court-abortion

Fairly fun article about how Mitch McConnell's decision to not even have a hearing for Merrick Garland when he was nominated to the SCOTUS is biting him in the ass in a big way.

No, it's not because Garland is heading the DoJ which is overseeing the investigation into the apparently widespread criminality of Trump and those in his orbit.

It's about how his decision resulted in a 6:3 conservative majority on the court, which led to the decision to overturn Roe, which was a 5:4 vote. And how that has energized Democrats bigly and may very well result in his inability to retake the Senate and become Majority Leader once more.

If only Republicans weren't so painfully short-sited and spiteful and actually had an interest in governing and doing their jobs, they might stop hurting this country and, in the longterm, themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvmd...rmed-man-trump

We talked about the armed whacko with a clown wig that threatened to kill "all the Democrats because Trump was still president"?

I mean, he did the clown meme himself in this stunt.

[cubby]

Now I'm going to need @cubby on this one, because we've discussed this topic before. Namely, the infuriating topic of
a) you lie to your lawyer
b) your lawyer passes that false information forward to a signed legal form, because the lawyer has no requirement to verify the information
c) no crime is committed.

I despise this chain of events. Now, there are counterpoints, which I hope cubby can further explain. Supposedly, a lawyer is ethically supposed to bail on a client that lies to them and causes this chain of events to unfold. Bobb hasn't. If they conspired, that's all of them up for perjury and obstruction of justice. But to date, nobody's been cited with anything for what we now know is an objective lie: Team Trump telling the DOJ they'd returned everything, when they had not.

And no, I'm not accepting "they forgot they had 15 boxes of the stuff, and somehow they missed it in their search". Classified folders are pretty obvious, even empty ones.

The above-cited experts are suggesting that Trump lied to his legal team. Subpoena-ing someone's lawyers is a big step, but may be mandatory here. Bobb has already gotten her own lawyer, the rest might (cough) follow suit.

Unfortunately, you're not going to be happy with the answer.

In general, attorneys are held to a higher standard of conduct by the court than any other individual, save judges. So in this case, the attorney's attesting to something their client said, and it being a lie, makes it the attorney's fault, or more accurately, responsibility. However, that line can only go so far - because as you pointed out, attorneys are ethically bound to resign when their clients lie to them, to the point the attorneys have submitted unintentially false documents, as we see in the case of Trump.

And subpoenaing the attorneys in this case would be YUGE ordeal. And this entire Felonious clusterfuck will only get more and more complicated. Trump will probably be seeking new attorneys, etc - and that will another entire sub-mess.

However, through this entire smorgasbord of illegal activity from Trump, we have a very clear thread to pull on for relatively swift justice. And while I do not pretend to have any hold on the entire situation (Trump's legal problems are legion, and will probably have an entire library dedicated to them - if the truth survives), it appears Garland has one particular set of charges, that have a relatively objective standard, in which Trump is in obvious violation of.

The Espionage Act.

The original raid found dozens of documents no one should have access to - those are the nuclear secrets documents, that cannot be declassified, regardless of Presidential whim - and that is codified. If I were the Attorney General, and we're all better off that I am not, I would strip away every other legal claim and issue Trump is attempting to throw at them, a.k.a. "the kitchen sink", and have his Red and Blue teams focus on those charges, and moving forward with indictments and warrants.

The rest of Trump's criminal activity can be separated out, and dealt with as it plays out - and it will only get more complicated, as Trump continues to both commit crimes and lie about it.

[Endus]

This is the same here in the United States. Most people don't realize this point - any document marked with a classified designation is always classified. There is no handwaving it away.

More specifically, anything marked as classified is to be treated as classified. If it's been declassified and the copy you have is out of date, the appropriate step is to return that copy to the appropriate group for destruction and have the declassified version issued to replace it. You don't get to just ignore the classification markings, ever.

And declassifying something takes paperwork, and formal-ish process, as you would expect with important documents.

Yep, this is gonna go real quickly at trial; Trump will claim he declassified things, they'll call in an archival expert with access who'll confirm that is not, in fact, true, and that Trump is either perjuring himself by making that claim or he's so detached from reality he should be considered for institutionalization. It's not a question of opinion or perspective. It's a binary and objectively-determinable point of fact, and if Trump's take doesn't line up with the government's, he's at best wrong, and more likely, lying out his ass.

[Edge-]

Yep, this is gonna go real quickly at trial; Trump will claim he declassified things, they'll call in an archival expert with access who'll confirm that is not, in fact, true, and that Trump is either perjuring himself by making that claim or he's so detached from reality he should be considered for institutionalization. It's not a question of opinion or perspective. It's a binary and objectively-determinable point of fact, and if Trump's take doesn't line up with the government's, he's at best wrong, and more likely, lying out his ass.

"I ordered it be done! Someone didn't carry out my order, not my fault!"

"Surely you have a paper trail of that order to verify your claim?"

"No of course not, I did everything verbally to avoid paper trails."

"So it's just your word?"

"Yes!"

"Which you know is worthless given the number of times your word hasn't been true in this investigation alone?"

"Witch hunt!"

"Excuse me?"

"DEEP STATE!"

"...this session is done for the day, I have a migraine."

[Breccia]

And declassifying something takes paperwork, and formal-ish process

And, on top of all that, doesn't change whether they're government property. They were.

Now once again, I don't think Trump will be convicted for taking empty folders. I'm guessing that's still not 100% legal, but a folder that says only "This is classified" with no contents doesn't seem like a major security breach. The problem, of course, is if those folders weren't empty when he took them, but are now. That stuff shouldn't be on the loose.

Oddly enough, it occurs to me that Trump has long since discarded what his only useful defense is: "The FBI planted those". It's conspiracy-theory bullshit and false, but without it, like you said he is objectively guilty.

- - - Updated - - -

"No of course not, I did everything verbally to avoid paper trails."

Can you imagine if the thing Trump did, specifically to not be caught by the cops, gets him caught by the cops?

- - - Updated - - -

It's not a question of opinion or perspective.

This is correct.

"I could have sworn I--" is something that comes up at sentencing. If I tell the cops "I could have sworn I paid for that car" or "I told my accountant to pay for that car" you can bet I'm still being arrested for something.

[Edge-]

Can you imagine if the thing Trump did, specifically to not be caught by the cops, gets him caught by the cops?

Actually yes, yes I can.

Just like he reportedly took classified materials to protect himself against the "DEEP STATE", but in taking those classified materials appears to have violated the law and actually sent federal law enforcement, not the "DEEP STATE", after him as the Archives would like their records back.

[Breccia]

Unfortunately, you're not going to be happy with the answer.

In general, attorneys are held to a higher standard of conduct by the court than any other individual, save judges. So in this case, the attorney's attesting to something their client said, and it being a lie, makes it the attorney's fault, or more accurately, responsibility. However, that line can only go so far - because as you pointed out, attorneys are ethically bound to resign when their clients lie to them, to the point the attorneys have submitted unintentially false documents, as we see in the case of Trump.

So, my ire was directed at a situation in which (a) a client lies to their lawyer and (b) the lawyer passes that along and (c) there are no consequences. From the looks of things, Bobb is in trouble. As I posted earlier, Bobb hired her own lawyer, and I haven't seen her in the news since. Well, not by name. The DOJ are now calling her "Individual 2" and not, for example, "defendant's counsel".

Huh. That's interesting.

[Paranoid Android]

The House Oversight Committee is asking the National Archives to confirm that Trump no longer has any presidential records in his possession — and for them to have Trump certify as much in writing

Great move! As some speculate that Trump might have documents everywhere, likely in Bedminster. It's a win win, cause if he has turned them over, fine. But getting this dude on lying about not having turned them all in would be great.

In fact has the DOJ asked this?

[cubby]

So, my ire was directed at a situation in which (a) a client lies to their lawyer and (b) the lawyer passes that along and (c) there are no consequences. From the looks of things, Bobb is in trouble. As I posted earlier, Bobb hired her own lawyer, and I haven't seen her in the news since. Well, not by name. The DOJ are now calling her "Individual 2" and not, for example, "defendant's counsel".

Huh. That's interesting.

Your ire is well founded, and if Bobb is already seeking an attorney, she is already fucked - like so many other ex-attorneys who tried to find fortune and fame representing Trump.

[SoulForge]

Your ire is well founded, and if Bobb is already seeking an attorney, she is already fucked - like so many other ex-attorneys who tried to find fortune and fame representing Trump.

The fact that people haven't learned their lesson is astounding.

[Edge-]

The fact that people haven't learned their lesson is astounding.

The type of people who think that working for Trump will boost their career are generally also the type of people who seem largely incapable of learning lessons.

[SoulForge]

The type of people who think that working for Trump will boost their career are generally also the type of people who seem largely incapable of learning lessons.

I guess people who think about the possible outcomes of an action before taking it are few and far between. These things seemed obvious to me long ago.

Still. There are so many examples of people who are under the bus of Trump that.............I don't know......

[Poopymonster]

I guess people who think about the possible outcomes of an action before taking it are few and far between. These things seemed obvious to me long ago.

Still. There are so many examples of people who are under the bus of Trump that.............I don't know......

They're thinking short term "This will look fucking AWESOME on my resume."
Not realizing no law firm is going to read your resume after you're disbarred and/or sitting in prison because you showed Brock Turner levels of judgement.