Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[tehdang]

In those words? No, you haven't, and you are correct. Unfortunately, by you consistently saying it was okay

Never said it was okay either.

and then bitch about the FBI going to get them

They made some mistakes in the process of reviewing them. I never said the search warrant wasn't appropriate.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA "criticism" AAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH. I love you've deluded yourself into believing that's what you're doing. When you spend weeks defending Trump by bringing up Hillary, as though it absolves him, and at no point have answered the questions of "Why he had them", "Why stole them", and "Why he continued to keep them," it shows you are not arguing in good faith and why no one is willing to put up with your bullshit.

If you want a mind reader, go consult a spiritual medium or something. I can't give them to you. If you think you have additional interesting questions beyond what others were asking, do a better job understanding and incorporating the answers I've already given in posts you make. It just shows by conduct that you're uninterested in hearing them from me.

No, the supreme court actually doesn't disagree with me. I literally linked you the fucking case that Trump doesn't have fucking executive privilege. They said as much literally this fucking year.

No, that case didn't show what you claimed it did. I addressed that when you brought it up. It furthermore didn't change the Supreme Court precedent that can before it, which holds now and until a future court establishes new precedent.

Keep telling yourself that. They don't. The case cited doesn't say what you're saying it does. I ignored your bullshit the first time because this reading is absurd on its face, and the judge has been lambasted up and down over it. It's just amazing you're spewing this bullshit still.

I quoted and applied it to the case, but I'm dreadfully sorry you didn't find it convincing ...

The PRA gives archivists the right to review

... but don't pretend this is something other than FBI review of the documents. FARA doesn't have them, FARA hasn't possessed them and been sued for what they've done with them, and the judge didn't give a ruling on FARA. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in sincerely believing the issue is 100% obviously against my position. Distracting from the points I've made shows misunderstanding, not understanding but sincere opposition.

the claims of Presidential privilege must yield to the important congressional purposes of preserving appellant's Presidential materials and maintaining access to them for lawful governmental and historical purposes.

No Mar-A-Lago congressional inquiry exists. Governmental purposes are already honored by the search warrant. I make no bones about the FBI seeking a judge's ruling and handing documents over to FARA when they're done (and cease abusing process in the meantime). This section regards the constitutionality of the Act before the the Supreme Court. What's you're forgetting is what follows, where the Supreme Court explicitly state that their ruling does not overcome all such claims of executive privilege made by presidents out of office. Obviously, they had to write this, specifically because people like you would take what they wrote and pretend no such claims existed anymore.

This Court held in United States v. Nixon . . . that the privilege is necessary to provide the confidentiality required for the President's conduct of office. Unless he can give his advisers some assurance of confidentiality, a President could not expect to receive the full and frank submissions of facts and opinions upon which effective discharge of his duties depends. The confidentiality necessary to this exchange cannot be measured by the few months or years between the submission of the information and the end of the President's tenure; the privilege is not for the benefit of the President as an individual, but for the benefit of the Republic. Therefore the privilege survives the individual President's tenure."

I've bolded key parts to aid you.

His First Amendment claim is clearly outweighed by the compelling governmental interests

I never said Trump has a valid First Amendment claim, so I don't know why you bring this up.

The Act's regulation of the Executive Branch's function in the control of the disposition of Presidential materials does not, in itself, violate such principle, since the Executive Branch became a party to the Act's regulation when President Ford signed the Act into law and President Carter's administration, acting through the Solicitor General, urged affirmance of the District Court's judgment. Moreover, the function remains in the Executive Branch in the person of the GSA Administrator and the Government archivists, employees of that branch.

This concerns an FBI criminal investigation, not FARA. I don't know why you would bring this up. FARA isn't in the position to indict Trump. The FBI did not declare it had no intention of brining a criminal case against Trump, and hand them off to FARA. Trump couldn't legitimately object to that, if the FBI had done this.

The mere screening of the materials by Government archivists, who have previously performed the identical task for other former Presidents without any suggestion that such activity in any way interfered with executive confidentiality, will not impermissibly interfere with candid communication of views by Presidential advisers, and will be no more of an intrusion into Presidential confidentiality than the in camera inspection by the District Court approved in United States v. Nixon

Trump's lawsuit does not concern screening procedures of archivists, it concerns criminal investigations done by the FBI. Please note and state for the record that you know FARA isn't FBI or DOJ. FARA review isn't DOJ or FBI review. I have to keep pointing out the many times people object to claims I never made.

[Ripster42]

blah blah whine blah.

Quote from the case she's citing like I did. The case doesn't back her up. The case she's citing says that during criminal investigations the DoJ gets to look at those comms. It directly refutes her and you. It's why I quoted that part of the case.

You're full of shit, and she's a terrible jurist.

[Breccia]

Never said--

Trump still hasn't cited privilege on the stand. As such, nothing you've cited (correctly or not, mostly not) is still irrelevant.

Especially considering Team Trump is now demanding evidence from the DOJ that the items are still classified.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump’s lawyers filed their own papers to the same appeals court, making some of the same arguments they had made before Judge Dearie. They claimed, for example, that the Justice Department had not proved that the documents it had deemed as classified continued to be classified and hinted that Mr. Trump might in fact have declassified them.

“The government again presupposes that the documents it claims are classified are, in fact, classified and their segregation is inviolable,” the lawyers wrote. “However, the government has not yet proven this critical fact. The president has broad authority governing classification of, and access to, classified documents.”

Fortunately, that's not how it works. And it seems like the "special master" isn't buying it, from the quotes several of us have posted. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the defense can't just say "I make this unfounded claim, and now the prosecution has to prove it's wrong". I believe the term is "affirmative defense". And I also believe they're trying this to avoid having to say, under oath, they're declassified. Too bad they all have "classified" stamped all over them.

[gondrin]

Trump still hasn't cited privilege on the stand. As such, nothing you've cited (correctly or not, mostly not) is still irrelevant.

Especially considering Team Trump is now demanding evidence from the DOJ that the items are still classified.



Fortunately, that's not how it works. And it seems like the "special master" isn't buying it, from the quotes several of us have posted. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the defense can't just say "I make this unfounded claim, and now the prosecution has to prove it's wrong". I believe the term is "affirmative defense". And I also believe they're trying this to avoid having to say, under oath, they're declassified. Too bad they all have "classified" stamped all over them.

To add to this, according to Trump's lawyers, he had handwritten notes on the documents itself and therefore, executive privilege. Yes, that is their words.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ab49aa4ca2f67e

Trump lawyers say his handwritten notes on top secret documents mean they fall under executive privilege

Former President Donald Trump's attorneys are asserting the top-secret government documents seized by FBI agents last month are subject to executive privilege because the former president scribbled handwritten notes on them.

Via Politico's Kyle Cheney, Trump's attorneys made this argument in a footnote in their latest court filing in which they argue the handwritten notes mean that the documents "could certainly contain privileged information," thus "further supporting the need for an independent, third-party review of these documents."

Cheney also notes that Trump's lawyers' major argument is that the burden is on the Department of Justice to prove that the documents in question are still classified, even as they acknowledge that the documents were marked as classified at the time of their seizure at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort.

"The government again presupposes that the documents it claims are classified are, in fact, classified and their segregation is inviolable," they argue. "However, the government has not yet proven this critical fact."

Trump's legal team has so far avoided explicitly saying that the former president declassified the documents he brought with him to Mar-a-Lago, and is now arguing that it is the DOJ's job to prove that he didn't do so.

[Breccia]

To add to this, according to Trump's lawyers, he had handwritten notes on the documents itself and therefore, executive privilege.

I believe the analogy raised before "can I wrap the murder weapon in my medical records" applies here.

Also:

"it is the DOJ's job to prove that he didn't do so"

This will be trivial to sarcastic to do.
1) They are labeled classified.
2) The DOJ shows them the nothing that proves they were declassified.
3) Profit.

None of which should happen until Trump takes the stand and says "I declassified them". Neither the DOJ nor the court should entertain Trump's knockoff Chinese tweets as a legal filing.

[masterhorus8]

To add to this, according to Trump's lawyers, he had handwritten notes on the documents itself and therefore, executive privilege. Yes, that is their words.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ab49aa4ca2f67e

Too bad executive privilege isn't his to invoke, and as per the PRA, is NARA's to handle. Just like the top secret docs that he supposedly wrote on. Fucking moron...

[The Stormbringer]

Think they’re regretting going for the Special Master yet? The guy is preemptively shredding what little credible defense they could’ve mounted.

For sure. Dearie says he wants this to be finished early October, not "end of November" like Cannon wanted. It'll be beautiful if he manages it...

[tehdang]

Quote from the case she's citing like I did.

I quoted from the opinion just after I quoted and responded to what you quoted from the opinion. Re-read my post.

The case doesn't back her up. The case she's citing says that during criminal investigations the DoJ gets to look at those comms. It directly refutes her and you. It's why I quoted that part of the case.

It says no such thing. In fact, it would be strange for it to cover "criminal investigations" since it involved the General Services Administration, and not the FBI.

You're full of shit, and she's a terrible jurist.

She ruled as she ought, and people just get mad and defensive at every minor setback in the war against Trump.

Just wait for a judge to actually rule on executive privilege, instead of sticking to this absurd presumption that the DOJ could ignore court precedent and be fine. You likely won't even have to wait that long.

*Handwaves*

My last post you handwaved away the content absent response, so I'm happy to return the favor. Feel free to take up its arguments at your leisure.

[Ripster42]

I quoted from the opinion just after I quoted and responded to what you quoted from the opinion. Re-read my post.

No, you didn't. You quoted cannon's opinion, not the case she's citing, which, again, directly contradicts her opinion, and the bullshit you've been spewing this entire thread.

It says no such thing. In fact, it would be strange for it to cover "criminal investigations" since it involved the General Services Administration, and not the FBI.

Once again:

The mere screening of the materials by Government archivists, who have previously performed the identical task for other former Presidents without any suggestion that such activity in any way interfered with executive confidentiality, will not impermissibly interfere with candid communication of views by Presidential advisers, and will be no more of an intrusion into Presidential confidentiality than the in camera inspection by the District Court approved in United States v. Nixon

Try reading the damn case. US v Nixon is the criminal case that Nixon v Administrator of the GSA references. All the other quotes I put from the case were about how the former president has no right to prevent the current executive from accessing those comms either.

So:

1 Current executive can access comms.
2 In criminal cases, even the non-executive can access those comms.

That's what Nixon v Administrator of the GSA says. This is why you're full of shit and she's a bad jurist. You don't actually look at the case she's citing, and she's directly contradicted by the case she's citing.

[masterhorus8]

@Ripster42 if you want some extra stuff to back up your point, you can just quote the Presidential Records Act.

[Ripster42]

@Ripster42 if you want some extra stuff to back up your point, you can just quote the Presidential Records Act.

That's what the case she's citing is essentially about. The forerunner to the current PRA, the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act. The case just shits all over every single claim of executive privilege when a former president tries to hide crap from the current executive. It essentially says that there's no expectation that the executive branch won't be able to access those comms for legitimate gov't reasons (AKA archival or criminal investigations), and that in criminal investigations even people outside of the executive branch can access those comms.

[masterhorus8]

That's what the case she's citing is essentially about. The forerunner to the current PRA, the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act. The case just shits all over every single claim of executive privilege when a former president tries to hide crap from the current executive. It essentially says that there's no expectation that the executive branch won't be able to access those comms for legitimate gov't reasons (AKA archival or criminal investigations), and that in criminal investigations even people outside of the executive branch can access those comms.

Yeah, I just don't understand how anyone can argue otherwise to it... It flat out says that NARA is in charge of those documents for a former president. XD

[Ripster42]

Yeah, I just don't understand how anyone can argue otherwise to it... It flat out says that NARA is in charge of those documents for a former president. XD

That's not all it says though. It says

There is nothing in the Act rendering it unduly disruptive of the Executive Branch, since that branch remains in full control of the Presidential materials, the Act being facially designed to ensure that the materials can be released only when release is not barred by privileges inhering in that branch.

As long as it stays in the executive, there's no real expectation of privilege. Only the release of the material to the public or another branch has any real protection. Committing crimes isn't protected by the "privileges inhering in that branch." That's what US v Nixon was about. That's why even people outside of the executive were granted access to those comms. The release of those documents is protected, unless there's a criminal investigation (it's why SCOTUS ordered nixon to release the unredacted tapes [8-0!] to the house judiciary committee in '74 [though public release is still likely protected until trial]), but it's not protected from the executive itself when the gov't has a "legitimate interest".

[s_bushido]

Yeah, I just don't understand how anyone can argue otherwise to it...

What else are they going to do? Admitting you broke the law (when you obviously did) isn't exactly the best defense.

[Kaleredar]

Yeah, I just don't understand how anyone can argue otherwise to it... It flat out says that NARA is in charge of those documents for a former president. XD

They're trying to reverse-psychology it, but in like an elementary school playground kind of way.

The court: "Prove that the documents were declassified"

Team Trump: "Nuh-UH, YOU prove that they WEREN'T declassified!"

[Breccia]

My last post you--

Still no useful contribution to the disucssion. Not even Dearie is bringing this up. His lawyers barely touch the subject. And that's because Trump refuses to say under oath if they're privileged or not. Making what you've spent the last dozen days arguing as irrelevant as you are wrong.

[tehdang]

No, you didn't. You quoted cannon's opinion, not the case she's citing, which, again, directly contradicts her opinion, and the bullshit you've been spewing this entire thread.

I quoted sections of the same opinion you quoted in the post I referenced. If you have any further questions, re-read the post or re-read Nixon vs GSA. You and I quoted the same document.

Once again:
The mere screening of the materials by Government archivists, who have previously performed the identical task for other former Presidents without any suggestion that such activity in any way interfered with executive confidentiality, will not impermissibly interfere with candid communication of views by Presidential advisers, and will be no more of an intrusion into Presidential confidentiality than the in camera inspection by the District Court approved in United States v. Nixon

I don't know how many times I must repeat that government archivists do not have the documents and aren't involved.

Try reading the damn case. US v Nixon is the criminal case that Nixon v Administrator of the GSA references.

You'll have to do a better job separating cases that reference other cases, and what makes a criminal case. Neither are criminal cases, and Nixon vs GSA was properly quoted by myself and Cannon.

All the other quotes I put from the case were about how the former president has no right to prevent the current executive from accessing those comms either.

You have shown nothing of the kind. The FBI criminal investigation is not the same thing as the Biden administration requesting access to documents.

So:

1 Current executive can access comms.
2 In criminal cases, even the non-executive can access those comms.

If only there was no threat of prosecution, you'd have a point here. The FBI can turn everything over to the NARA and about half of what you've said thus far suddenly becomes relevant.

That's what Nixon v Administrator of the GSA says. This is why you're full of shit and she's a bad jurist. You don't actually look at the case she's citing, and she's directly contradicted by the case she's citing.

I wasn't the one that spent a lot of times quoting inapplicable sections of the case. I wasn't the one that falsely claimed I quoted Cannon's opinion, rather than Nixon vs GSA. Go read it again if you really doubt the provenance of my quotes; past Supreme Court precedent isn't going to change while I wait for your admission.

Still no useful contribution to the disucssion. Not even Dearie is bringing this up. His lawyers barely touch the subject. And that's because Trump refuses to say under oath if they're privileged or not. Making what you've spent the last dozen days arguing as irrelevant as you are wrong.

You'll have to eventually decide whether you're arguing an irrelevant point, or you're not arguing because it's irrelevant, or you're not arguing because I'm wrong, or you're arguing because I'm wrong.

If you really are waiting for what "Trump refuses to say under oath," then maybe don't waste so much time on issues that occur before Trump might even be put under oath? I can wait with you, if all this nonsense is just filler until you get to whatever thing matters to you. It's clear you intend to handwave any criticism until such a point is reached. That much you've established twice or thrice over.

[Ripster42]

I quoted sections of the same opinion you quoted in the post I referenced. If you have any further questions, re-read the post or re-read Nixon vs GSA. You and I quoted the same document.

I don't know how many times I must repeat that government archivists do not have the documents and aren't involved.

I don't know how many times I must repeat that it doesn't matter who in the executive branch has the documents as long as they're not released outside of the executive and there's a legitimate gov't interest. If you have any further questions, re-read Nixon vs GSA. I'll even quote it, for the 3rd time:

There is nothing in the Act rendering it unduly disruptive of the Executive Branch, since that branch remains in full control of the Presidential materials, the Act being facially designed to ensure that the materials can be released only when release is not barred by privileges inhering in that branch.

This is the section detailing how it doesn't matter who in the executive gets the docs. The bit about barring privileges inhering to that branch is about the release of the comms to people outside of the executive.

It's like I quoted, directly from nixon vs GSA:

The mere screening of the materials by Government archivists, who have previously performed the identical task for other former Presidents without any suggestion that such activity in any way interfered with executive confidentiality, will not impermissibly interfere with candid communication of views by Presidential advisers, and will be no more of an intrusion into Presidential confidentiality than the in camera inspection by the District Court approved in United States v. Nixon

US v Nixon was the criminal case, referenced by nixon v GSA, that allowed disclosure of those comms outside of the executive branch, to both the judicial and legislative branches. Note, this section is separate from the section outlining how it doesn't matter who in the executive branch sees the comms as long as there's a legitimate gov't interest. This section is about how not sacrosanct those comms are, because they can be shared outside of the executive branch during criminal inquiries.

I wasn't the one that spent a lot of times quoting inapplicable sections of the case. I wasn't the one that falsely claimed I quoted Cannon's opinion, rather than Nixon vs GSA. Go read it again if you really doubt the provenance of my quotes; past Supreme Court precedent isn't going to change while I wait for your admission.

You're the one that spent lots of time ignoring directly applicable sections of the case. This is why you're full of shit. That she also ignored those parts of the case is why she's a terrible jurist.

[Shadowferal]

Some sort of major announcement later this morning

New York Attorney General Tish James to make “major announcement” tomorrow morning.

[tehdang]

I don't know how many times I must repeat that it doesn't matter who in the executive branch has the documents as long as they're not released outside of the executive and there's a legitimate gov't interest. If you have any further questions, re-read Nixon vs GSA. I'll even quote it, for the 3rd time:

There's absolutely no need to "repeat that it..." anything. Just admit that when you said "You quoted cannon's opinion, not the case she's citing" you now realize we both quoted from the same document. Quoting what government archivists may do is a tangent to what the FBI may do in its criminal investigations.

This is the section detailing how it doesn't matter who in the executive gets the docs. The bit about barring privileges inhering to that branch is about the release of the comms to people outside of the executive.

It's like I quoted, directly from nixon vs GSA:

This has the same fault as before. Namely, it's talking about government archivists, not the justice department and criminal charges. I don't think you really are prepared to address "screening of materials by Government archivists" and "previously performed the identical task," when its neither archivists nor previous performance that are concerned here.

US v Nixon was the criminal case, referenced by nixon v GSA, that allowed disclosure of those comms outside of the executive branch, to both the judicial and legislative branches. Note, this section is separate from the section outlining how it doesn't matter who in the executive branch sees the comms as long as there's a legitimate gov't interest. This section is about how not sacrosanct those comms are, because they can be shared outside of the executive branch during criminal inquiries.

US vs Nixon was regarding the issuance of a subpoena. It was not a criminal case. Also, please admit you were wrong to to reference a previous case in Court opinion that stands in its own right. It's not about "sacrosanct" nor outlining "how it doesn't matter." It's about the performance of the archives, not the FBI. I may be long dead before you admit the federal archivists are not members of the federal bureau of investigations. When I press you on why it applies to the FBI, I'm not asking you to repeat for the third time the Supreme Court's instructions pertaining to archivists. Archivists don't charge crimes and convene grand juries.

You're the one that spent lots of time ignoring directly applicable sections of the case. This is why you're full of shit. That she also ignored those parts of the case is why she's a terrible jurist.

Ignoring? I'm reading them. Stop quoting sections pertaining to archivists in performance of their duties when the documents have not been surrendered to them in full. You'd have me believe Merrick Garland is wearing a wig and costume to pretend he is Kara S. Blond leading her department. How else to interpret sections you're quoting as instructions to NARA, when NARA isn't implicated in parts of the court decision you're up in arms about?