Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

You: Trump is free to have those documents back
Me: ???

This is a lie. You are lying.

[Endus]

He picked the most direct way to raise the issue of executive privilege in his lawsuit. Since the only "harm" is the DoJ refusing to consider it in his review, the most direct response is to compel the issue to be raised under a special master. He literally used it, successfully, to correct the only harm he suffered, in the only way it could be corrected.

You must have me confused with some guy that thought executive privilege meant nothing could possibly be seized or something. I don't understand how you imagined a more direct way to go about this.

If this is intentional, you're moving the goalposts. If this is unintentional, here's your reminder that not every document potentially protected by executive privilege also is classified. So when you asked about any possible documents "you imagine are covered by executive privilege," and immediately switch to the category of classified documents, you're either forgetting your first post, or conflating privilege and classification levels.

Two times in the same post! In your previous post, you wondered "AND how do you expect them to screen those? There are no markings associated with that." When I pointed out the obvious, that they went through the same trove to screen for attorney-client privileged documents without any markings on those, you act like you posted regarding who wants what documents back? Are you certain that you understood your initial question when you asked it?

Just to reiterate:
You: What documents do you imagine are covered by executive privilege?
Me: I can't specifically know until it's challenged in court
You: We will never know what was classified that was recovered from Mar-A-Lago.
Me: Classified and privileged are the same now???

You: AND how do you expect them to screen those? There are no markings associated with that.
Me: They already showed they could do the same for attorney-client privileged documents, which also don't bear markings
You: Trump is free to have those documents back
Me: ???

Trump having any documents whatsoever that were either classified in any way whatsoever or that were covered under Executive Privilege means he's a criminal who's stealing intelligence from the USA.

Your "defense" involves pointing to a separate-but-related crime as if that means he's not a criminal.

If Trump claims any of those documents are protected under Executive Privilege, that means A> the DOJ shouldn't review them, due to privilege, and B> Trump is confessing to a crime.

[Breccia]

A> the DOJ shouldn't review them, due to privilege

Barring the crime exception. Like, say, plotting a murderous insurrection.

[Endus]

Barring the crime exception. Like, say, plotting a murderous insurrection.

Also barring the current President potentially stepping in and waiving whatever executive privilege might exist.

Cause if he can't, that's fucking ridiculous and your system is broken as fuck.

[postman1782]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/14/polit...y-6/index.html

Yep, Mark Meadows is talking, he has fully complied with his J6 subpoena finally.

[Kaleredar]

Also barring the current President potentially stepping in and waiving whatever executive privilege might exist.

Cause if he can't, that's fucking ridiculous and your system is broken as fuck.

Tehdang's assumption seems to be "The things the FBI took that they claim Trump allegedly wasn't supposed to have was stuff that was discussed between Trump and his confidants, and because Trump was president that means such things are executive privileged, but because Trump discussed it with confidants it also makes it attorney-client privileged, so therefore he gets to exert infinite executive privileged that Biden can't revoke but that Trump doesn't need to follow any sort of chain of custody on because it's also attorney-client privileged, and the FBI further had no right to look into these documents because this could have been the case about the documents and they overstepped their bounds, rendering the whole thing invalid."

And I don't think 1) that's what the nature of the documents the FBI took were or 2) that's how the law works even if they were, but he clearly needs some way to ameliorate Trump of any guilt, and therefore ameliorate himself for being a Trump supporter.


Like I've said. I don't know if he thinks Trump is innocent of this, but I maintain that he simply does not care. He seems to think the FBI had absolutely no right to look into these documents, period, so whatever they discover is a moot point because they should never have been allowed to look into it in the first place. A similar notion to someone arguing "I don't think the officer went through the proper channels to obtain the warrant to search my property when he discovered the 27 mangled corpses in my basement, so they have no right but to declare a mistrial and let me walk."

[Gorsameth]

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-electio...ce=mostpopular

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.

He and his lawyers claim that the charges should be thrown out, because the Republicans acquitted Trump during the 2nd impeachment hearings after January 6th happened.

I have no experience with Bar hearings but I can't imagine that falsely claiming your immune because someone else was acquitted while they are investigation you for making false statements is going to be helpful.

They seem like the sort of hearing where they will not tolerate bullshit.

[Flarelaine]

I'm curious. I imagine it could be protections for religious institutions who choose not to do same-sex marriage ceremonies which is fine and all as long as they're a private business/institution. But at the same time I imagine same-sex couples wouldn't be flocking to many of those businesses/institutions for their weddings, either.

I'm not sure after all those stories of same-sex couples doubling down on the bakers who had said they wouldn't bake cakes for them.

[postman1782]

I have no experience with Bar hearings but I can't imagine that falsely claiming your immune because someone else was acquitted while they are investigation you for making false statements is going to be helpful.

They seem like the sort of hearing where they will not tolerate bullshit.

Nope, it's not really a good argument. It will also be used in his criminal trial that is upcoming.

[Breccia]

In other news about Trump's legal worries, Trump has offered NYState a settlement offer and it was summarily rejected, strongly implying that NYState will sue Trump and/or one of his children for all those back taxes.

That was for the civil investigation. There is also a criminal investigation into Trump Org, due to start next month.

[beanman12345]

I have no experience with Bar hearings but I can't imagine that falsely claiming your immune because someone else was acquitted while they are investigation you for making false statements is going to be helpful.

They seem like the sort of hearing where they will not tolerate bullshit.

And Trump wasn't even criminally acquitted, just politically. It's such a bad argument.

[Ripster42]

@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?

They can subpoena them from the lawyer and have a taint team look them over in rare instances for evidence of a crime. It happened to ghouliani recently.

And yes, that's what the taint team was doing and what the special master will do with the docs found at MAL as the warrant allowed them to seize all docs stored alongside docs that were labelled as classified.

[Breccia]

And Trump wasn't even criminally acquitted, just politically. It's such a bad argument.

Team Trump has only one defense: time. And it's not even a good one. For one, being in the WH and/or getting a pardon only go so far. For two, Trump has already proven repeatedly that, while he demands loyalty, he does not repay it. He gave out way fewer pardons than I expected, but more importantly, way fewer than his allies expected, too. And for three, the more and more Trump continues to dominate the party as a basically proven criminal, the less and less effective all those gerrymandering and voter restriction rules will be, since not only will independents be less motivated to vote for a bankrupt spy surrounded by felons, Democrats might mobilize specifically to counter that.

But they're out of good choices. They committed a bunch of crimes, got caught, and want the people in power to deem it partisan and remove the penalties for their friends.

The term for this is "fascism".

[Draco-Onis]

Team Trump has only one defense: time. And it's not even a good one. For one, being in the WH and/or getting a pardon only go so far. For two, Trump has already proven repeatedly that, while he demands loyalty, he does not repay it. He gave out way fewer pardons than I expected, but more importantly, way fewer than his allies expected, too. And for three, the more and more Trump continues to dominate the party as a basically proven criminal, the less and less effective all those gerrymandering and voter restriction rules will be, since not only will independents be less motivated to vote for a bankrupt spy surrounded by felons, Democrats might mobilize specifically to counter that.

But they're out of good choices. They committed a bunch of crimes, got caught, and want the people in power to deem it partisan and remove the penalties for their friends.

The term for this is "fascism".

I don't think pardons are the goal here a lot of republicans have argued for fascism, that the executive is above the law and its power is absolute. If Trump wins in 2024 there's no doubt we are heading to a dictatorship. He will fill every post with loyalist who will carry his will and change laws with the backing of the reich wing supreme court.

He will also shore up the leadership of the armed forces something he failed to do last time.

[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.