Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[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?

[Kaleredar]

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.

You have no valid criticism. That Trump has "criticisms" does not mean his are valid, either, any more than a thief caught stealing by the police thinks that he was arrested unjustly because he really wanted to get away with it.

You argue a nebulous point of "They can't have the documents because they're executive privileged, but they can only be executive privileged by Trump, because it also falls under attorney-client privilege such that Trump uniquely retains the right to not only view them but to declassify them at his complete leisure" as if Trump did some 5D chess move, all cached in "The FBI overstepped its bounds because they had no right to view any of Trump's documents because of the aforementioned double-privileged status and they overreacted anyway because Trump could declassify them at any time."

That about sum it up?

[masterhorus8]

You have no valid criticism. That Trump has "criticisms" does not mean his are valid, either, any more than a thief caught stealing by the police thinks that he was arrested unjustly because he really wanted to get away with it.

You argue a nebulous point of "They can't have the documents because they're executive privileged, but they can only be executive privileged by Trump, because it also falls under attorney-client privilege such that Trump uniquely retains the right to not only view them but to declassify them at his complete leisure" as if Trump did some 5D chess move, all cached in "The FBI overstepped its bounds because they had no right to view any of Trump's documents because of the aforementioned double-privileged status and they overreacted anyway because Trump could declassify them at any time."

That about sum it up?

Don't forget, another problem they have is somehow that it wasn't NARA themselves that went in and executed the warrant. Instead of, y'know, the people that execute warrants...

[Kaleredar]

Don't forget, another problem they have is somehow that it wasn't NARA themselves that went in and executed the warrant. Instead of, y'know, the people that execute warrants...

...which is tantamount to saying "Sure I stole jewelry from the jewelry store, but why are the cops arresting me? Shouldn't the jeweler be arresting me?!"

[Ripster42]

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.

This is why I also quoted the part about lawful gov't purposes:

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.

Again, criminal investigations are a lawful gov't purpose. If the opinion was restricting itself only to archival interests, lawful gov't purposes wouldn't have been included.

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.

The US v Nixon referenced here is not about the issuance of a subpoena by congress, but about the special prosecutor's access, and it was while Nixon was still president. The criminal case was derailed by pardon, not claims of executive privilege. It details how the judicial branch got access to the comms, and denied executive privilege applied for criminal investigations even while the president was still in office. Congress' access was through a different case and was decided 8-0 against nixon. The comms are not sacrosanct.

Again, nixon vs GSA does not restrict itself to archivists. If it did, the court would not have included "lawful gov't purposes." That's why I included that section in the first rebuttal post to your garbage.

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?

Yes, ignoring. Stop being deliberately obtuse (full of shit) by denying that the case is speaking more broadly than just about archivists, but about maintaining access for all lawful gov't purposes.