Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

This article shows one of the fake electors in Georgia that the DA in Fulton County is investigating, let in operatives right before the voting machine breach in Georgia. The operatives were working for Sydney Powell.

Indeed, the reason this is getting so much attention is because of how directly felonious it is. You're not allowed to do this, and the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[postman1782]

Indeed, the reason this is getting so much attention is because of how directly felonious it is. You're not allowed to do this, and the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Yep, Sydney Powell should be looking at charges for this, because she directed them to do this in multiple states.

[tehdang]

I understand what she meant, even if I think it a flawed comparison as the attorney-client privilege is a about decidedly private matters that have been legislated on at length while executive privilege is something else entirely. I also know team Trump tried to use the attorney-client privilege to allege some documents shouldn't have been seized or inspected, which fell flat on its face last I recalled. This may not be the victory you believe it is.

You're also really going to source your claim about executive privilege meaning any former President is free to take whatever documents he or she wants with them so long as they think said document(s) might make them look bad. That's a rather bold claim as to how transition of power works. Let us see evidence such a tradition exists.

You're really going to make the case that executive privilege hasn't been debated in public and in courts at length? Look at Nixon and Clinton. 1974 vs 1997. A comparable time period would be from today until year 2045. Not enough time period for you?

You didn't read what I fucking posted.

I read and responded to you. You said a Supreme Court case said the former president does not have executive privilege. I corrected you, from the case you cited. So as much as your ideology demands certain people "[suck] Trump's cock as much as he can," I suggest you stick to the record. Unless you wish to submit video evidence of the cock-sucking you're so enthusiastic about.

- - - Updated - - -

(notice how @tehdang still can't even answer the simplest questions? )

You had trouble responding to my answers to your questions without casting them as some talking points, so maybe you should try repudiating your past conduct and proceeding towards accepting answers. Usually, the questioner seeks answers. Sometimes, the questioner just wants to say any answers are just copies of some other speaker. In which case, I would suggest to you that you submit your question to your local politicians. Their answer would be better described as talking points.

[Jastall]

You're really going to make the case that executive privilege hasn't been debated in public and in courts at length? Look at Nixon and Clinton. 1974 vs 1997. A comparable time period would be from today until year 2045. Not enough time period for you?

I read and responded to you. You said a Supreme Court case said the former president does not have executive privilege. I corrected you, from the case you cited. So as much as your ideology demands certain people "[suck] Trump's cock as much as he can," I suggest you stick to the record. Unless you wish to submit video evidence of the cock-sucking you're so enthusiastic about.

- - - Updated - - -

You had trouble responding to my answers to your questions without casting them as some talking points, so maybe you should try repudiating your past conduct and proceeding towards accepting answers. Usually, the questioner seeks answers. Sometimes, the questioner just wants to say any answers are just copies of some other speaker. In which case, I would suggest to you that you submit your question to your local politicians. Their answer would be better described as talking points.

Anywhere near as much as attorney-client privilege, such that a solid consensus was formed and that there's clear precedent for the current case? No, I won't make that claim at all, considering Barr himself theorized that the privilege doesn't apply to Trump and he's neither a novice on the matter nor particularly partisan against Trump by any sane metric. And what you quoted definitely doesn't give Trump, or anyone else, the leeway to do whatever they want with any and all White House document the second they think it makes them look bad.

Speaking of which, still waiting on actual evidence on that one.

[Breccia]

Look at Nixon and Clinton. 1974 vs 1997.

So it turns out, Jan 21st 2009 was actually pretty important.

As we noted earlier today, President Obama issued an order rolling back the former administration's restrictive FOIA policies. And now, we learn President Obama has signed another order (PDF) reversing President George W. Bush's controversial order that gave ex-presidents and their heirs broad authority to stop release of White House records.

Although, and surely an honest, genuine poster like yourself knows this, Trump is the first to ask for a current US President to be blocked from reading older records. Your claims that it's been discussed in the courts, therefore, is false in this context. Until is has, the rule remains that Trump can't overrule Biden. Plus, I personally posted a long list of reasons why you were flat-out wrong on the topic, other than we agree that Trump is a criminal. Don't know why you keep admitting that by saying Trump has WH property, which is what the FBI came looking for with their subpoena, and Executive Privilege documents would 100% apply.

Until that time, the idea of privilege isn't really the current issue. The FBI might not be able to read the documents they're taking, but they're still required to take them, because Trump was subpoena'd, lied about having them, and threw them in random boxes with non-classified stuff like his passports and medical records -- his admission on both, by the way. For now, the Executive Privilege thing is irrelevant, and only not off-topic because Trump still faces those Jan 6th problems. Just, you know, not today.

Speaking of off-topic:

Unless you wish to submit video evidence of the cock-sucking you're so enthusiastic about.

Huh. Don't think this is the right thread for that. Maybe we should ask. Hey @Rozz and @Flarelaine a poster here is asking for videos of men performing sexual acts on each other to be posted on your forums. Which thread should that be? Because while I think @cubby was being metaphorical, tehdang clearly wasn't, or he wouldn't ask for a video. So, which thread should the videos of men performing sexual acts on each other be posted?

On your forums?

Which tehdang non-hypothetically asked for?

[tehdang]

Anywhere near as much as attorney-client privilege, such that a solid consensus was formed and that there's clear precedent for the current case? No, I won't make that claim at all, considering Barr himself theorized that the privilege doesn't apply to Trump and he's neither a novice on the matter nor particularly partisan against Trump by any sane metric. And what you quoted definitely doesn't give Trump, or anyone else, the leeway to do whatever they want with any and all White House document the second they think it makes them look bad.

Speaking of which, still waiting on actual evidence on that one.

They can assert the privilege and have it tried in court. The DoJ ... well, they tried to theorize such an assertation wasn't possible. Their loss.

So it turns out, Jan 21st 2009 was actually pretty important.

In terms of the depth of executive privilege jurisprudence, yes. In terms of your specific citation, it's a very small addition.

Although, and surely an honest, genuine poster like yourself knows this, Trump is the first to ask for a current US President to be blocked from reading older records.

Assertion of executive privilege isn't so simple, come on now.

Your claims that it's been discussed in the courts, therefore, is false in this context. Until is has, the rule remains that Trump can't overrule Biden. Plus, I personally posted a long list of reasons why you were flat-out wrong on the topic, other than we agree that Trump is a criminal. Don't know why you keep admitting that by saying Trump has WH property, which is what the FBI came looking for with their subpoena, and Executive Privilege documents would 100% apply.

Until that time, the idea of privilege isn't really the current issue. The FBI might not be able to read the documents they're taking, but they're still required to take them, because Trump was subpoena'd, lied about having them, and threw them in random boxes with non-classified stuff like his passports and medical records -- his admission on both, by the way. For now, the Executive Privilege thing is irrelevant, and only not off-topic because Trump still faces those Jan 6th problems. Just, you know, not today.

Rule is that past executive cannot be so simply dismissed as having genuine claims of executive privilege. The current judge trying the dispute said as much. I suggest you read the order.

Huh. Don't think this is the right thread for that. Maybe we should ask. Hey @Rozz and @Flarelaine a poster here is asking for videos of men performing sexual acts on each other to be posted on your forums. Which thread should that be? Because while I think @cubby was being metaphorical, tehdang clearly wasn't, or he wouldn't ask for a video. So, which thread should the videos of men performing sexual acts on each other be posted?

On your forums?

Which tehdang non-hypothetically asked for?

A poster, postman1782, claimed "a fucking moron that literally sucks Trump's cock as much as he can." He has made an assertion of fact that I don't think survives scrutiny.

If mods want to make a determination on saying a moron that literally sucks Trump's cock as much as he can., I totally invite their ruling.

[Breccia]

If mods want--

Now now, that's off topic. Your literal -- you seem to be fond of that word, so we'll use it -- public request for men performing sexual acts on each other on MMO-C can wait until the mods tell you which thread you should look in. This thread is about Trump!

Now I did note that you did talk about "past privilege can't be waived" and, you know what, let's just say that's true. Problem is, Trump never cited privilege over the documents he stole from the WH. There's no record of that -- NARA would have that record, and file those documents with all the others. Under their control, not a hotel basement.

Plus, again, it doesn't matter when the crime is "taking WH property". Executive Privilege belongs to the WH, not to Trump. But that's only what I got from the articles I've posted from actual legal scholars.

[cubby]

You had trouble responding to my answers to your questions without casting them as some talking points, so maybe you should try repudiating your past conduct and proceeding towards accepting answers. Usually, the questioner seeks answers. Sometimes, the questioner just wants to say any answers are just copies of some other speaker. In which case, I would suggest to you that you submit your question to your local politicians. Their answer would be better described as talking points.

See...still no solid answers on even the most simple answer. You can keep gaslighting us with your responses, but it all boils down to the same thing.

Why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges against Hillary? I promise here and now, whatever answer you provide to this question, it will not be labeled as a "talking point" or other wise varnished. I just want to know why, if Hillary's email actions were such obvious legal violations, she wasn't charged?

[Breccia]

By the way, it was mentioned, but I thought I'd cite, Barr says the ruling was incorrect.

The op--

Oh, he said it on FOX News.

The opinion, I think, was wrong, and I think the government should appeal it.

It's deeply flawed in a number of ways. I don't think the appointment of a special master is going to hold up, but even if it does, I don't see it fundamentally changing the trajectory.

I think the fundamental dynamics of the case are set. The government has very strong evidence of what it really needs to determine whether charges are appropriate.

I mean, at this point, between that and what @cubby just asked, Trump's DOJ is more interested in Trump being a criminal than Clinton being a criminal.

[Jastall]

They can assert the privilege and have it tried in court. The DoJ ... well, they tried to theorize such an assertation wasn't possible. Their loss.

Appeals exist, and this is also a reminder you still haven't sourced your own claim so far despite both me and others pressing you so I'll assume you're just inventing such a tradition to fit your argument now.

Besides, the idea that the FBI shouldn't have grabbed anything in case executive privilege applied is patently absurd. They had a mandate, they grab everything that remotely looks like it could fit the mandate, then filter out as they go afterwards, that's how it works in such a case. IF the privilege applies (big if as of now), they'd still have to grab the stuff and look at it, same for attorney-client privilege (albeit such documents would be of less interest to the FBI as a matter of course in this case).

[cubby]

They can assert the privilege and have it tried in court. The DoJ ... well, they tried to theorize such an assertation wasn't possible. Their loss.

In terms of the depth of executive privilege jurisprudence, yes. In terms of your specific citation, it's a very small addition.

Assertion of executive privilege isn't so simple, come on now.

Rule is that past executive cannot be so simply dismissed as having genuine claims of executive privilege. The current judge trying the dispute said as much. I suggest you read the order.

You can't Executive Privilege this issue away, regardless of past rulings. Trump was caught - that's a legal term for seen by LEO's violating a law - with classified documents in his possession as a private citizen - including some nuclear documents that CANNOT be declassified, regardless of Presidential order.

The rest of your arguments are just bluster. This is how Trump will be going to jail. The only issue Garland faces right now is how violent a reaction you and your ilk will have when the law is upheld.

[postman1782]

I read and responded to you. You said a Supreme Court case said the former president does not have executive privilege. I corrected you, from the case you cited. So as much as your ideology demands certain people "[suck] Trump's cock as much as he can," I suggest you stick to the record. Unless you wish to submit video evidence of the cock-sucking you're so enthusiastic about.

Then you didn't fucking understand it then. And I was right, the former president DOESN'T HAVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. Only the current president does.

[cubby]

By the way, it was mentioned, but I thought I'd cite, Barr says the ruling was incorrect.

Oh, he said it on FOX News.

The opinion, I think, was wrong, and I think the government should appeal it.

It's deeply flawed in a number of ways. I don't think the appointment of a special master is going to hold up, but even if it does, I don't see it fundamentally changing the trajectory.

I think the fundamental dynamics of the case are set. The government has very strong evidence of what it really needs to determine whether charges are appropriate.

I mean, at this point, between that and what @cubby just asked, Trump's DOJ is more interested in Trump being a criminal than Clinton being a criminal.

If it's possible for Trump to go to jail, this is how it will happen. As you pointed out, even the GoP is ready to be rid of him - at least the sane portions of the GoP.

What worries me is that there will be no remittance for the horror and shame that Trump has wrought on the United States. AND, there are still millions that will not face reality, and believe him to not only be not guilty, but the legitimate 2020 winner.

[Breccia]

Besides, the idea that the FBI shouldn't have grabbed anything in case executive privilege applied is patently absurd.

Indeed. Trump supporters keep bringinging up Executive Privilege because they're thinking about the next crime Trump will be charged with. Trump, to use a recently-revealed legal term, was "caught".

[cubby]

Then you didn't fucking understand it then. And I was right, the former president DOESN'T HAVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. Only the current president does.

He might understand, but his goal is obfuscation, either by design or ignorance, through the repetition of talking points fed to him by the people who would rather see the country burn than succeed via another political party's policy goals.

[Edge-]

https://archive.ph/zMQv6

A document describing a foreign government’s military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities, was found by FBI agents who searched former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and private club last month, according to people familiar with the matter, underscoring concerns among U.S. intelligence officials about classified material stashed in the Florida property.

Some of the seized documents detail top-secret U.S. operations so closely guarded that many senior national security officials are kept in the dark about them. Only the president, some members of his Cabinet or a near-Cabinet level official could authorize other government officials to know details of these special access programs, according to people familiar with the search, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive details of an ongoing investigation.

Documents about such highly classified operations require special clearances on a need-to-know basis, not just top-secret clearance. Some special-access programs can have as few as a couple dozen government personnel authorized to know of an operation’s existence. Records that deal with such programs are kept under lock and key, almost always in a secure compartmented information facility, with a designated control officer to keep careful tabs on their location.

But such documents were stored at Mar-a-Lago, with uncertain security, more than 18 months after Trump left the White House.

If this is true this continues to place insane pressure on Trump for his intentional mishandling of some of the nations biggest secrets. And those of our allies.

[Breccia]

If this is true

I kinda hope not.

But hey, you and @cubby and @postman1782 would any of you call the US's military capabilies "Executive Privilege"? Because I don't think it qualifies.

[cubby]

Indeed. Trump supporters keep bringinging up Executive Privilege because they're thinking about the next crime Trump will be charged with. Trump, to use a recently-revealed legal term, was "caught".

They also keep bringing it up because it's a talking point being pushed by the GQP propaganda machine. Those talking points change as Trump's story changes. We'll see 'dang' now, and have in the past, change his argument based on the story Trump and his criminal ilk have pushed out.

There was an interesting quote from one of the books Woodward wrote about Trump. At one point during the ongoing scandals of Trump's Residency, he said "[we should put out a story about Ivanka, that should pull the focus away]". Because that's how he's lived his entire life, breaking the law, and then covering it up with more scandals.

It is, as always, horrifying.

- - - Updated - - -

https://archive.ph/zMQv6

A document describing a foreign government’s military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities, was found by FBI agents who searched former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and private club last month, according to people familiar with the matter, underscoring concerns among U.S. intelligence officials about classified material stashed in the Florida property.

Some of the seized documents detail top-secret U.S. operations so closely guarded that many senior national security officials are kept in the dark about them. Only the president, some members of his Cabinet or a near-Cabinet level official could authorize other government officials to know details of these special access programs, according to people familiar with the search, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive details of an ongoing investigation.

Documents about such highly classified operations require special clearances on a need-to-know basis, not just top-secret clearance. Some special-access programs can have as few as a couple dozen government personnel authorized to know of an operation’s existence. Records that deal with such programs are kept under lock and key, almost always in a secure compartmented information facility, with a designated control officer to keep careful tabs on their location.

But such documents were stored at Mar-a-Lago, with uncertain security, more than 18 months after Trump left the White House.

If this is true this continues to place insane pressure on Trump for his intentional mishandling of some of the nations biggest secrets. And those of our allies.

Anyone else would already be arrested and held without bail, facing Espionage charges. Again, horrifying.

[Edge-]

would any of you call the US's military capabilies "Executive Privilege"? Because I don't think it qualifies.

I'm pretty sure Trump didn't bring back reports from Peter Navarro for some light reading, nor does the FBI care in the slightest about communications between the POTUS and their cabinet here. That's not what they're looking for, and that's very likely not what Trump brought back with him.

But hey, it's a talking point! It's just about the only possible talking point that Republicans have left, so you're going to need to pry it from their cold, dead hands.

[cubby]

I kinda hope not.

But hey, you and @cubby and @postman1782 would any of you call the US's military capabilies "Executive Privilege"? Because I don't think it qualifies.

Not only are they not covered by Executive Privilege, many of those documents cannot be declassified, even by the President. By law.

Executive Privilege is just the current smoke screen Trumpeteers are using in an intentionally obtuse effort to cover for the felonious dipshit.