Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

https://today.yougov.com/topics/poli...passing-law-le

Again, as a reminder of how unpopular Republican positions are nationally -

51% of Americans support Congress passing legal protections for same-sex marriage.
34% of Americans oppose Congress passing legal protections for same-sex marriage.

Once more: Republicans have a majority unpopular position. Not a plurality, but a majority. Sure it's the slimmest majority, but the point still stands.

For context a few short decades ago, these numbers were -

34% support
58% oppose

Which highlights how the Republican party continues to be out of step with America in general as they push their regressive bullshit.

[Breccia]

A new wrinkle is turning up.

Between Conway, MSNBC and others, it looks like there's someone called "FPOTUS COUNSEL 1" who lied to the FBI.

"That's Bobb."

No. The newly unredacted stuff, including the above, calls her "Individual 2". Not counsel at all. She's super fucked.

Because FPOTUS Counsel 1 told the FBI a combination of two things:
1) "he was advised" all the documents were in one place, namely, the storage room
2) "he was not advised" any documents were in any other place, such as Trump's desk

He, of course, was wrong. Uh oh. By the way, "my client didn't advise me about XXX" sounds a lot like dancing around the truth to me. It sounds like what I would say, if I had proof my client was guilty, but my client didn't say the words "I'm guilty" and I wanted to be paid.

Based on other publicly-available information. FPOTUS COUNSEL 1 is very likely M. Evan Corcoran. I don't believe we've seen his name much before this:

Ok, I believe Trump found a couple of attorneys that are going to "defend" him. Names are Jim Trusty and Evan Corcoran. Nothing says quality lawyer then with the name Trusty.

suggesting he wasn't a high-ranking lawyer. Why he was given the job of talking the FBI down from kicking down doors is beyond me. Corcoran,



besides looking like Guy Fieri took a sandblaster to the face, joined up with Team Trump to eagerly defend the Jan 6th insurrection. He also defended Bannon from --

"Nothing, Bannon lost."

Well, yes. He also represented Frank Scavo, who--

"Didn't that fucker plead guilty to murderous insurrection?"

Well, yes. Cocoran has worked in other large cases before, but his biggest was defending an insurance company from a 9/11 claim. His criminal trial record is...not as solid. He was hired by Trump more or less on a whim. His name was tossed out there, and Trump hired him after he happened to be on one conference call. They hadn't even met.

Having already failed to defend Trump allies twice, Cocoran has now moved on to failing to defend Trump. We know from the affidavit -- thanks for asking for that to be unsealed, Trump, it's been hilarious -- that the FBI told Trump they wanted their documents back, came to get their documents back, Corcoran met them as Trump's direction, and could not tell them correctly where the documents were.

And we're right back into that long-standing issue @cubby has tried to explain to me three times by now. Trump lied to his lawyer, and his lawyer believed him, and as such told the FBI they'd found everything. Corcoran might also have been the lawyer who told the FBI they couldn't open any more boxes in the storage room, which if true, uh, whoops.

So I believe one of three things will happen.

1) Having willingly lied to the FBI, Corcoran joins Bobb in quitting Team Trump, getting his own lawyer, and bracing for impact. The FBI then points to the forms they signed and handed over in person, and say "you lied to us, this is where the handcuffs come out".

2) Having unwillingly lied to the FBI, Corcoran is asked very specific, very direct questions by the FBI and elects to tell them that Trump told him what to say, that he took Trump at his word, and that nobody (including he or Trump) bothered looking in other boxes or other rooms. His testimony as to what Trump told him becomes evidence of obstruction of justice.

3) The FBI have Corcoran on that video footage they seized, and it proves Corcoran was in on the whole thing, because it shows him moving documents outside the storage room. Then, later, telling the FBI he didn't know of any outside the storage room. Lying to the FBI is also several crimes, including this one and this one.

Lawyer-client privilege has a well-known crime exception. You cannot commit a crime with your client or for your client, and any discussions that are crimes are not confidential. "I want you to lie to the FBI" would be exactly such. The FBI likely have leverage to flip Corcoran. They might even have enough evidence that they don't have to.

I suspect there may be another person who could have advised Corcoran, making the joke "dressing in multiple lawyers to stay warm" almost work. It's possible that a higher-ranking lawyer tried to shield himself, Corcoran, and Trump with some kind of degrees of separation, so no one individual one committed a crime. I also don't think that will work. Corcoran might be a true believer, but he also doesn't seem like the kind of person who could withstand a full FBI interrogation.

And, of course, Corcoran will have the same legal/ethical issues Bobb has. Lying to the FBI is not something you should walk away from without incident. Bobb already has a lawyer. It would not surprise me to see Corcoran going through the same chain of events as Bobb.

But that's just my read on the situation. Does anyone else see a fourth result that Trump/Corcoran could face? Let me know.

[tehdang]

So, you're entirely fine with ...
or because you think it's 100% fine for him to have ...

You answered questions I never asked, and now you're moving on to the assumption and assertion phase of this thing. Reminder from last post:

I never asked you about their right of collection.
I didn't ask you your opinion on whether the search warrant was lawful, or a raid was warranted, or if either of those could be considered hasty

You have the post before it.

I'm certainly not going to stop you from assuming whatever you like is true about me. That's about your volition and your character. If you want to hear it from my own words, well I'll definitely do my best to answer your questions if you answer mine. I'd stick to things that are likely to be publicly confirmed, not hypotheticals about the identity of classified documents that may never be actually confirmable. I've already answered others about what I think of speculation only on selective leaks by people at the DoJ and FBI to friendly media outlets.

I've already posted that classified documents cannot be covered by executive privilege and any documents that ARE covered by executive privilege are for NARA to handle, both as per the Presidential Records Act. And as the FBi is acting under NARA's request, they have all of the permissions they need to handle any of the docs they take.

Now sit down and process why that matters.

Any and all posts you make that ignore this simple fact will be reported as trolling.

You're quoting my response to Soulforge. You haven't quoted my posts or mentioned me in this thread for the month. So, uhh, before you go off on "I've already posted that," maybe you can recognize that this is the first time I'm noticing you wish to post to me.

From my perspective, I've already shown why such arguments blatantly reject that past Supreme Court precedent should matter in this case. I've already reminded posters in this thread that the question is over what the DoJ must do in sequestering documents from investigative teams, not whether "NARA" can handle. I've also reminded posters on why the FBI is quite capable of screening for privilege, since they already tried, but failed, to properly do it in the case of attorney-client privilege. In short, you're confessing ignorance of my arguments and showing irrelevant information that has no bearing. Why do you say "NARA to handle," when this is about documents that the FBI may have no right to hand to their investigative teams in pursuit of possibly multiple criminal indictments? This is about review of documents prior to FBI investigation teams reading them ... no NARA, just FBI.

You should admit that the FBI ought to screen for potentially executive privileged documents and potentially attorney-client privileged documents before investigating them as part of a criminal investigation. Maybe NARA ultimately has a right of possession, but the FBI doesn't have the power to ignore Trump's assertion of rights as it investigates a criminal case. The FBI and NARA are different. Before you want to say this is all trolling, a district judge just confirmed that, based on Supreme Court precedent, FBI errors, and public trust. You're essentially calling the FBI dummies for not telling the judge that some NARA procedure gives them the right to ignore possible assertion of executive privilege when they have investigative teams pore over the seized documents. They wouldn't be as unwise as you. They might have to win a case in court once abuse of process claims are over.

So maybe you're smarter than the FBI when they tried to defend their conduct before a judge. I'm all ears. I'd recommend re-reading the court order that addressed the arguments the FBI tried to make. Remember, FBI investigations pursuant to possible indictment is different than who eventually can own and possess the documents.

[Edge-]

but the FBI doesn't have the power to ignore Trump's assertion of rights

Reminder: Trump has not actually asserted anything. He's hinted at it, but not actually asserted executive privilege.

Not that he can, since he's not the current head of the executive branch, but just another reminder that this continues to be incorrect.

So maybe you're smarter than the FBI when they tried to defend their conduct before a judge.

We still talking about the judge whose ruling has been nearly universally panned by liberal, conservative, and non-partisan lawyers and legal scholars? Including Trump's former AG Bill Bar?

[Endus]

Reminder: Trump has not actually asserted anything. He's hinted at it, but not actually asserted executive privilege.

Not that he can, since he's not the current head of the executive branch, but just another reminder that this continues to be incorrect.

In addition to this, if he doesn't have the authority to so assert privilege in this, and like you said he does not, then the FBI absolutely does have the power to ignore what Trump lacks the authority to claim.

The same way they could if a suspect claimed to be the God-Emperor of the USA and thus their lord and eternal master who they must obey. They can just ignore crazy shit that isn't true. It's not even hard.

[Breccia]

You answered questions--

Someone had to. You sure weren't. By the way, you were wrong at least three new times in this post.

On topic: in one of the many books by the many Last Sane Man In The White House, who...oh, wait, no, this is done by competent reporters! Holy shit!

In it, we learn that 5 of Trump's inner circle, 3 of whom were Cabinet members, threatened to resign en masse because he was fucking up the 2018 elections.

In a series of messages sent through the encrypted app Signal, according to the book, Nielsen informed her chief of staff, Miles Taylor, that five of the most senior officials in the administration were on the verge of resigning as a group.

White House chief of staff John Kelly was eyeing the exits. And Gen. Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, she wrote, were "wanting to go with Kelly" and call it quits.

"Alas," Taylor said, "then we have some planning to do."

"Yeah," Nielsen said, according to the book, adding, "Okay for the first time I am actually scared for the country. The insanity has been loosed."

As we now know, they were all gutless cowards. Trump did ruin the 2018 midterms, and they all stayed and watched it happen. Four of the five left in 2019, when their exit had no value. DeVos stuck it out till the murderous insurrection.

- - - Updated - - -

In addition to this

In addition to in addition to this this, Trump has every right to take the stand and say "I declared it XXX before I left office".

He hasn't, and nobody's been able to find it yet. So not only does it not matter if he declared it then, it doesn't matter if he "declares" it now. Tweets aren't evidence. Filed forms and witness testimony under oath are. Until he sits his fat orange ass in the chair, everything @tehdang has said in the last ten days and counting is as wrong as it is irrelevant. We might as well ask what if Trump rode to court on a wind rider.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/mollyjongfast/st...30020680728576

WON TON KILLINGS! WHAT IS A WON TON KILLING!?

Lauren Boebert doesn't actually know. She has a GED, but maybe the English requirements were pretty low.

[cubby]

@cubby How are attorney client privilege documents that lose the status as they're being used as evidence of a crime normally discovered? I assume that this sort of thing isn't something that the attorney that's a part of said documents would be the one to hand over? Are they typically "stumbled" upon?

And in the relevant scenario of MAL, would you consider the crime of having the classified documents be enough to review any and all documents that were stored with them to be additional evidence for review and check if they're at all related? And I'd assume that anything unrelated would be legally obligated to be returned and their contents unable to be referenced, otherwise it'd be dismissed as unlawfully obtained info?

If attorney client privileged documents are found (or claim to be in) seized documents, the documents must be set aside, and a judge brought in to rule on how the documents are to be sorted, reviewed, and then either put back into custody or returned to the accused who's documents were originally seized. But that's not what you asked.

If attorney client documents lose their status, which is very rare, then they are considered "normal" documents and discoverable under the normal rules of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Losing that stats can only happen if it turns out the Privilege Review decides it's actually not part of the attorney client communication (and therefore were never attorney client privilege) OR if the attorney crosses the line into criminality, and then the communications can be used against the both parties for use in prosecution (there are huge numbers of complicated exceptions and rulings on all this, as you would expect).

That's how they would be discovered, for your first question.

In the case of MAL, the issue becomes even more complicated. Because someone does need to review the documents, not the DoJ and not Trump et al, to separate them out. However, some of the documents are so highly classified, that few people are legally allowed to see them (including most/all of the FBI agents and DoJ attorneys, and the judge, and of course all of Trump's people). Solving that issue is interesting.

To your second question - unfortunately, no, I do not consider the crime of having classified documents enough to review all documents. The attorney client protection is important and sacrosanct, and should not be waived or ignored even in the face of Crime-Boss-turned-Resident, such as we have with Trump. Even if Trump is lying about the claim that attorney client documents were seized, the privilege shouldn't be ignored.

Trump is a criminal and a fool, but he's also mafia-esque clever. And he will use every dirty trick in the book to delay and prevent justice being served on him.

[Breccia]

Even if Trump is lying about the claim that attorney client documents were seized, the privilege shouldn't be ignored.

I would think especially if Trump is lying. A quick look, "Man there's nothing here", all evidence returned, court case continues.

- - - Updated - - -

I can’t imagine being indicted. I’ve done nothing wrong.

-- mound of sociopathic feces Donald Trump

[Edge-]

but the FBI doesn't have the power to ignore Trump's assertion of rights

More on this incorrect claim - https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/polit...aim/index.html

Hewitt asked Trump about an account given by his former White House aide Kash Patel that Patel witnessed Trump's giving a verbal order to declassify the documents taken to Mar-a-Lago. (Patel, in an interview with Breitbart, said the materials Trump declassified had to do with the Russia probe, the Ukraine impeachment proceedings and "major national security matters of great public importance.")

"That's correct," Trump said. "And not only that, I think it was other people also were there. But I have the absolute right to declassify, absolute -- a president has that absolute right, and a lot of people aren't even challenging that anymore."

Trump added later in the interview that "everything was declassified."

Worth noting: A verbal order does not result in actual declassification. There's a process.

Trump, the Justice Department said in a court filing Tuesday, "principally seeks to raise questions about the classification status of the records and their categorization under the Presidential Records Act (PRA). But Plaintiff does not actually assert -- much less provide any evidence -- that any of the seized records bearing classification markings have been declassified."

Why? Because his lawyers, in their filings, to do not state that Trump has asserted privilege over these documents. Again because he doesn't have the authority to do so.

More on this -

Eighteen former officials in Trump's administration also told CNN last month that they were aware of no such declassification order and that they believed Trump's claims to be patently false.

I don't know how many different ways you can be told this but, once more -

Trump has not actually asserted anything. He's said he's asserted privilege, but there is no documented evidence of him doing so in court. He's only spoken about it on podcasts and social media - neither of which are government/court filings.

Even if he wanted to, former presidents do not have the authority to exert privilege. Only the sitting president does. Because when you leave office, you lose all the powers and authority. That all rests with the office itself and the person temporarily sitting inside it. Who is currently Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.

He still has a fun middle name.

[shimerra]

More on this incorrect claim - https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/polit...aim/index.html


Worth noting: A verbal order does not result in actual declassification. There's a process.


Why? Because his lawyers, in their filings, to do not state that Trump has asserted privilege over these documents. Again because he doesn't have the authority to do so.

Also important for people slow on the draw like @tehdang that even if he did declassify the documents it would still be illegal to remove them from secure federal locations/store them improperly for some if not all of them. One example of mishandling these documents would be if you were to say store it in an unlocked closet in your private residence as a civilian. Where known foreign spies have been caught snooping around. Or refuse to return it multiple times when asked and lieing about what you posses.

You know. Totally random examples.

[cubby]

Also important for people slow on the draw like @tehdang that even if he did declassify the documents it would still be illegal to remove them from secure federal locations/store them improperly for some if not all of them. One example of mishandling these documents would be if you were to say store it in an unlocked closet in your private residence as a civilian. Where known foreign spies have been caught snooping around. Or refuse to return it multiple times when asked and lieing about what you posses.

You know. Totally random examples.

Indeed.

And even worse for those continuing to be [willfully] slow on the draw, a document marked classified is ALWAYS classified, regardless of future declassification efforts. As @Endus pointed out, a document that goes through the declassification process is returned to the relevant department, and reissued without classification markings.

Trump, having possession of documents marked classified, is objectively guilty of having classified documents. And that doesn't even take into account the documents that can never be declassified, those being the Nuclear Secrets documents.

IMO, looking at the full situation, he only issue at this point is when Garland will indict.

[YUPPIE]

I find it interesting how much the news media doesn't just vilify Trump, but the entire Republican party.

It's one of the two major political entities in the US but the media will teach kids it's like some cabal of villains.

[Endus]

I find it interesting how much the news media doesn't just vilify Trump, but the entire Republican party.

It's one of the two major political entities in the US but the media will teach kids it's like some cabal of villains.

When they stop acting like a cabal of villains, they can be treated as something other than a cabal of villains.

"Why won't the media stop calling us evil for crushing orphans in our orphan-crushing machine?"
"ARE you crushing orphans in your orphan-crushing machine?"
"Of course we are! Do you oppose our freedom to do so, and the American tradition of crushing orphans to death?!"

[SoulForge]

When they stop acting like a cabal of villains, they can be treated as something other than a cabal of villains.

"Why won't the media stop calling us evil for crushing orphans in our orphan-crushing machine?"
"ARE you crushing orphans in your orphan-crushing machine?"
"Of course we are! Do you oppose our freedom to do so, and the American tradition of crushing orphans to death?!"

This. When you do shady and underhanded shit you get called on it. When you parrot lies and BS you get called on it.

[cubby]

I find it interesting how much the news media doesn't just vilify Trump, but the entire Republican party.

It's one of the two major political entities in the US but the media will teach kids it's like some cabal of villains.

The last couple of decades has the GOP coming out of their shadow, showing us who they truly are - and that is a cabal of villians, with their centerpiece being a man who has a litany of ongoing criminal and civil complaints against him.

How else would you describe the GQP at this point?

[Drutt]

https://twitter.com/mollyjongfast/st...30020680728576

WON TON KILLINGS! WHAT IS A WON TON KILLING!?

Lauren Boebert doesn't actually know. She has a GED, but maybe the English requirements were pretty low.

This woman is in Congress.

She doesn't know the meaning of the word "wanton", and she is in Congress.

Absolutely horrifying.

What's even worse about it is that little speech would have been rehearsed ahead of time, so having read it, she didn't look the word up before delivering her speech.

[SoulForge]

This woman is in Congress.

She doesn't know the meaning of the word "wanton", and she is in Congress.

Absolutely horrifying.

What's even worse about it is that little speech would have been rehearsed ahead of time, so having read it, she didn't look the word up before delivering her speech.

She's not the only one. MTG is also there. Gohmert. Is Gohmert the one with the family that hates him? I've lost track at this mess.

[Breccia]

Dumbass Trump's Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark is claiming he is immune to an ethics investigation, he is being investigated by the Bar Association for ethics violations, and he is under CRIMINAL AND CIVIL investigations for false statements, conspiracy and obstruction, post election for what he did trying to overturn the election.

Some of this is new information.

The D.C. Bar's Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition in June to launch disciplinary proceedings against Clark for engaging in dishonesty and interfering with the administration of justice.

Lawyers representing Clark wrote in the filing that on June 20, "approximately a dozen armed agents of the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General executed a criminal search warrant at [Mr. Clark’s] home at around 7 a.m. and seized his electronic devices."

Clark asked the bar to defer his disciplinary proceedings because of the ongoing Justice Department investigation, the House select committee's probe into the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and the Fulton County, Georgia, special grand jury investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The D.C. Bar's Office of Disciplinary Counsel recommended the disciplinary proceedings deferral be denied.

So the question was raised, can you come up with a dumber defense than "You can't convict me because Trump wasn't successfully impeached"? The answer is yes, "You can't kick my ass yet, you'll have to wait in line with everyone else".

[Edge-]

What's even worse about it is that little speech would have been rehearsed ahead of time, so having read it, she didn't look the word up before delivering her speech.

It's especially fun given the source of the quote she's reading from.