Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

So Dershowitz apparently filed for a temporary restraining order against the government to try to get back Lindell's phone on his behalf.

I have no idea why he's slumming. Even if he's desperate, he should have higher standards. Why would he work with such a proven loser as Dershowitz?

[Ripster42]

I have no idea why he's slumming. Even if he's desperate, he should have higher standards. Why would he work with such a proven loser as Dershowitz?

He was probably doing it pro bono so he could have something to talk about on fox again.

[Breccia]

Cobbledick...lol.

Oh, real mature.

Cobbledick is a real hard issue that needs to be handled carefully. Basically, the DOJ wanted things to progress in a healthy fashion until a satisfying result was reached, while old tired Trump wanted things to drag out forever and end up never getting results. I think the judge found the DOJ's Cobbledick had firmer standing than Trump, who admittedly has to pay for people to handle his Cobbledick for him.

Now, let's move onto a different story. Trump to host Mar-a-Lago fundraiser for Maryland governor candidate Dan Cox.

[Paranoid Android]

Guess who just said this on Sean Hannity?

Also, guess who doesn't know that a declassification process even exists?

So what happens if Biden in his mind reclassified these documents. Holy crap, we need a meme of Biden v Trump having a mind battle. I guess like Professor X v The Scarlet Witch?

This just turns my brain to mush. Someone dumb enough to say this and people who follow.

[Edge-]

So what happens if Biden in his mind reclassified these documents. Holy crap, we need a meme

Don't worry, that's already a Dark Brandon meme.

[Iliena]

With the sharks currently circling... I bet Donnie is asking himself a couple of the questions from this mashup a lot lately!

With all the shit he has done, I had forgotten that he had publicly mocked a disabled dude.

[tehdang]

You have no valid criticism.

That about sum it up?

I register that as your opinion. I hold a similar one. Your opinion is off-base, ill-informed, and driven by motivated reasoning and adherence to narrative. I certainly couldn't hold my views if I didn't acknowledge those that believe the same is true about me.

"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"

You're still off. "They can have the documents, because they were subject to a valid search warrant. They can't claim all 11,000 have no valid assertion of executive privilege, so they were obligated to screen for that in their review of what was seized. Their failure to do so was, among other things, a valid reason for the appointment of a special master to oversee the process that the FBI neglected."

I never said they can't have the documents.
I have no idea of your meaning in "executive privileged by," in the sense that you're making a verb out of a noun.
I only used attorney-client privilege in the sense that the DOJ admitted error in that before the judge, and in making comparisons to help very confused people understand privilege as a topic. They DOJ already knew to screen for attorney-client privilege, and (mostly) did so, so of course they could've also performed the same for executive privilege.
I have never said "Trump uniquely retains the right to not only view them but to declassify them at his complete leisure."

If you're very sure of the wrong summary you tried to make, then quote back some things I've said that gave you such a wrong impression.

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

It's in the paragraph addressing the constitutionality of the act of Congress. An FBI investigation is not congressional created and run, therefore not of "important congressional 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.

You're stripping the entire paragraph ...

(c) Given the safeguards built into the Act to prevent disclosure of materials that implicate Presidential confidentiality, the requirement that appellant's personal and private materials be returned to him, and the minimal nature of the intrusion into the confidentiality of the Presidency resulting from the archivists' viewing such materials in the course of their screening process, 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.

...into the last five words of the last sentence. This is entirely without good purpose. It severs the contextual meaning of a specific act of Congress in order for you to try to make it say what it does not say.

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.

Before we move on, can you first admit that (1) you were wrong to say what I previously quoted was not from Nixon vs GSA ("I quoted from the opinion" ... "No, you didn't. You quoted cannon's opinion"), and (2) US vs Nixon was not, and I quote you here, "US v Nixon was the criminal case"

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53914588
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53914657

We have two very basic factual misunderstandings in your last few posts, and I'm not willing to see you progress in other arguments you're attempting to make, without resolving past arguments you've neglected to resolve. I have very little faith that you're wedded to these new nuances you brought up in new posts, given the rate at which you've ceased to defend your old posts. In short, show me what you post matters to my understanding of what you wish to say, or I'll simply give you a couple of weeks to arrive at an argument you're going to stick to and not abandon two replies later.

Hey @tehdang what do you think of your boy trump’s claims that the FBI “thought he had Hillary’s emails and that’s why they raided him?”

Such claims have no merit. What do you think of your girl hillary's claims that Trump was an illegitimate president, or that Trump knows he stole the 2016 presidential election?

[Kaleredar]

Such claims have no merit. What do you think of your girl hillary's claims that Trump was an illegitimate president, or that Trump knows he stole the 2016 presidential election?

Seeing as she wasn't doing so as an excuse to try and get out of lying about retaining national security secrets that she illegally stole like Trump was... no, it really doesn't. Even moreso considering Trump is the one actively on trial. How many active criminal and civil investigations is Hillary Clinton currently facing?

And seeing as she didn't direct people to attack the capitol building or try and subvert the election in an extremely well-documented fashion that has resulted in numerous arrests and criminal and congressional investigations, Trump is still doing worse than her on that front too.

I mean, you can't even pick an example to criticize Hillary on that Trump just hasn't done abjectly worse on.

[Breccia]

I register that--

Not only has Trump still not declared any form of privilege under oath, there's now a lengthy appeals court ruling basically saying "don't bother".

You went from "I have nothing" to "I have less than nothing". Come back when Trump actually asserts privilege under oath, until then, your point you've been defending for 14 days is completely imaginary, and is as irrelevant as it is wrong.

[Kaleredar]

Not only has Trump still not declared any form of privilege under oath, there's now a lengthy appeals court ruling basically saying "don't bother".

You went from "I have nothing" to "I have less than nothing". Come back when Trump actually asserts privilege under oath, until then, your point you've been defending for 14 days is completely imaginary, and is as irrelevant as it is wrong.

He's having a hard time making a point because Trump's point is so vague, shifting, and unfounded, so he doesn't really know what he should be parroting.

[beanman12345]

Cobbledick...lol.

Even though it was correctly pointed out this forum isn't the place when @tehdang literally was requesting homoerotic sex tapes involving Trump a couple weeks back, I do think Cobbledick is the appropriate response for the inquiry.

[Poopymonster]

Even though it was correctly pointed out this forum isn't the place when @tehdang literally was requesting homoerotic sex tapes involving Trump a couple weeks back, I do think Cobbledick is the appropriate response for the inquiry.

I think you maybe confusing what said poster may/may not have wanted. It was to Gobbledick, not Cobbledick.

[beanman12345]

I think you maybe confusing what said poster may/may not have wanted. It was to Gobbledick, not Cobbledick.

Oh yeah yeah, I do see that now. My bad. Thanks.

[postman1782]

Sydney Powell failed to show up for her Grand Jury hearing today.

https://news.yahoo.com/former-trump-...210641587.html

[Breccia]

Sydney Powell failed to show up for her Grand Jury hearing today.

Seems like the Party of Law and Order just wants to sit at home watching reruns. Failing to appear for a subpoena, barring you know illness or an accident, should result in an arrest.

[postman1782]

Seems like the Party of Law and Order just wants to sit at home watching reruns. Failing to appear for a subpoena, barring you know illness or an accident, should result in an arrest.

Yep, I thought a bench warrant was issued for her, but apparently not.

[tehdang]

Seeing as she wasn't doing so as an excuse to try and get out of lying about ...

Really just asked you about what you thought about your girl and that, but if all you got is an explicit comparison, then I'll settle for that! Trump's claim you just described has absolutely no merit, full stop. No comparison to your girl's actions implied. It's just an unrelated question that was on my mind.

Not only has Trump still not declared any form of privilege under oath

Sounds like we'll have something to talk about if and when he is put under oath!

when @tehdang literally was requesting homoerotic sex tapes involving Trump a couple weeks back, I do think Cobbledick is the appropriate response for the inquiry.

I was actually surprised that people took the assertion of literal dick-sucking non-literally, but not the rejoinder to it. Schrödinger's joke, or maybe this is feigned literalism in a second layer to the joke.

[Kaleredar]

Really just asked you about what you thought about your girl and that, but if all you got is an explicit comparison, then I'll settle for that! Trump's claim you just described has absolutely no merit, full stop. No comparison to your girl's actions implied. It's just an unrelated question that was on my mind.

Please post constructively.

[Breccia]

Sounds like we'll have something to talk about if and when he is put under oath!

And that sounds like admission you haven't had anything to talk about yet. Considering, you know, you were wrong at every turn and it hasn't even happened yet.

[tehdang]

Please post constructively.

Just explaining how I interpreted your answer. I have nothing more to add.

And that sounds like admission you haven't had anything to talk about yet. Considering, you know, you were wrong at every turn and it hasn't even happened yet.

I'm responding to your hypothetical about Trump under oath, since we both know he hasn't been put under oath. Anything further is in your own imagination.