Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/mollyjongfast/st...30020680728576

WON TON KILLINGS! WHAT IS A WON TON KILLING!?

Lauren Boebert doesn't actually know. She has a GED, but maybe the English requirements were pretty low.

[cubby]

@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?

If attorney client privileged documents are found (or claim to be in) seized documents, the documents must be set aside, and a judge brought in to rule on how the documents are to be sorted, reviewed, and then either put back into custody or returned to the accused who's documents were originally seized. But that's not what you asked.

If attorney client documents lose their status, which is very rare, then they are considered "normal" documents and discoverable under the normal rules of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Losing that stats can only happen if it turns out the Privilege Review decides it's actually not part of the attorney client communication (and therefore were never attorney client privilege) OR if the attorney crosses the line into criminality, and then the communications can be used against the both parties for use in prosecution (there are huge numbers of complicated exceptions and rulings on all this, as you would expect).

That's how they would be discovered, for your first question.

In the case of MAL, the issue becomes even more complicated. Because someone does need to review the documents, not the DoJ and not Trump et al, to separate them out. However, some of the documents are so highly classified, that few people are legally allowed to see them (including most/all of the FBI agents and DoJ attorneys, and the judge, and of course all of Trump's people). Solving that issue is interesting.

To your second question - unfortunately, no, I do not consider the crime of having classified documents enough to review all documents. The attorney client protection is important and sacrosanct, and should not be waived or ignored even in the face of Crime-Boss-turned-Resident, such as we have with Trump. Even if Trump is lying about the claim that attorney client documents were seized, the privilege shouldn't be ignored.

Trump is a criminal and a fool, but he's also mafia-esque clever. And he will use every dirty trick in the book to delay and prevent justice being served on him.

[Breccia]

Even if Trump is lying about the claim that attorney client documents were seized, the privilege shouldn't be ignored.

I would think especially if Trump is lying. A quick look, "Man there's nothing here", all evidence returned, court case continues.

- - - Updated - - -

I can’t imagine being indicted. I’ve done nothing wrong.

-- mound of sociopathic feces Donald Trump

[Edge-]

but the FBI doesn't have the power to ignore Trump's assertion of rights

More on this incorrect claim - https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/polit...aim/index.html

Hewitt asked Trump about an account given by his former White House aide Kash Patel that Patel witnessed Trump's giving a verbal order to declassify the documents taken to Mar-a-Lago. (Patel, in an interview with Breitbart, said the materials Trump declassified had to do with the Russia probe, the Ukraine impeachment proceedings and "major national security matters of great public importance.")

"That's correct," Trump said. "And not only that, I think it was other people also were there. But I have the absolute right to declassify, absolute -- a president has that absolute right, and a lot of people aren't even challenging that anymore."

Trump added later in the interview that "everything was declassified."

Worth noting: A verbal order does not result in actual declassification. There's a process.

Trump, the Justice Department said in a court filing Tuesday, "principally seeks to raise questions about the classification status of the records and their categorization under the Presidential Records Act (PRA). But Plaintiff does not actually assert -- much less provide any evidence -- that any of the seized records bearing classification markings have been declassified."

Why? Because his lawyers, in their filings, to do not state that Trump has asserted privilege over these documents. Again because he doesn't have the authority to do so.

More on this -

Eighteen former officials in Trump's administration also told CNN last month that they were aware of no such declassification order and that they believed Trump's claims to be patently false.

I don't know how many different ways you can be told this but, once more -

Trump has not actually asserted anything. He's said he's asserted privilege, but there is no documented evidence of him doing so in court. He's only spoken about it on podcasts and social media - neither of which are government/court filings.

Even if he wanted to, former presidents do not have the authority to exert privilege. Only the sitting president does. Because when you leave office, you lose all the powers and authority. That all rests with the office itself and the person temporarily sitting inside it. Who is currently Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.

He still has a fun middle name.

[shimerra]

More on this incorrect claim - https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/polit...aim/index.html


Worth noting: A verbal order does not result in actual declassification. There's a process.


Why? Because his lawyers, in their filings, to do not state that Trump has asserted privilege over these documents. Again because he doesn't have the authority to do so.

Also important for people slow on the draw like @tehdang that even if he did declassify the documents it would still be illegal to remove them from secure federal locations/store them improperly for some if not all of them. One example of mishandling these documents would be if you were to say store it in an unlocked closet in your private residence as a civilian. Where known foreign spies have been caught snooping around. Or refuse to return it multiple times when asked and lieing about what you posses.

You know. Totally random examples.

[cubby]

Also important for people slow on the draw like @tehdang that even if he did declassify the documents it would still be illegal to remove them from secure federal locations/store them improperly for some if not all of them. One example of mishandling these documents would be if you were to say store it in an unlocked closet in your private residence as a civilian. Where known foreign spies have been caught snooping around. Or refuse to return it multiple times when asked and lieing about what you posses.

You know. Totally random examples.

Indeed.

And even worse for those continuing to be [willfully] slow on the draw, a document marked classified is ALWAYS classified, regardless of future declassification efforts. As @Endus pointed out, a document that goes through the declassification process is returned to the relevant department, and reissued without classification markings.

Trump, having possession of documents marked classified, is objectively guilty of having classified documents. And that doesn't even take into account the documents that can never be declassified, those being the Nuclear Secrets documents.

IMO, looking at the full situation, he only issue at this point is when Garland will indict.

[YUPPIE]

I find it interesting how much the news media doesn't just vilify Trump, but the entire Republican party.

It's one of the two major political entities in the US but the media will teach kids it's like some cabal of villains.

[Endus]

I find it interesting how much the news media doesn't just vilify Trump, but the entire Republican party.

It's one of the two major political entities in the US but the media will teach kids it's like some cabal of villains.

When they stop acting like a cabal of villains, they can be treated as something other than a cabal of villains.

"Why won't the media stop calling us evil for crushing orphans in our orphan-crushing machine?"
"ARE you crushing orphans in your orphan-crushing machine?"
"Of course we are! Do you oppose our freedom to do so, and the American tradition of crushing orphans to death?!"

[SoulForge]

When they stop acting like a cabal of villains, they can be treated as something other than a cabal of villains.

"Why won't the media stop calling us evil for crushing orphans in our orphan-crushing machine?"
"ARE you crushing orphans in your orphan-crushing machine?"
"Of course we are! Do you oppose our freedom to do so, and the American tradition of crushing orphans to death?!"

This. When you do shady and underhanded shit you get called on it. When you parrot lies and BS you get called on it.

[cubby]

I find it interesting how much the news media doesn't just vilify Trump, but the entire Republican party.

It's one of the two major political entities in the US but the media will teach kids it's like some cabal of villains.

The last couple of decades has the GOP coming out of their shadow, showing us who they truly are - and that is a cabal of villians, with their centerpiece being a man who has a litany of ongoing criminal and civil complaints against him.

How else would you describe the GQP at this point?

[Drutt]

https://twitter.com/mollyjongfast/st...30020680728576

WON TON KILLINGS! WHAT IS A WON TON KILLING!?

Lauren Boebert doesn't actually know. She has a GED, but maybe the English requirements were pretty low.

This woman is in Congress.

She doesn't know the meaning of the word "wanton", and she is in Congress.

Absolutely horrifying.

What's even worse about it is that little speech would have been rehearsed ahead of time, so having read it, she didn't look the word up before delivering her speech.

[SoulForge]

This woman is in Congress.

She doesn't know the meaning of the word "wanton", and she is in Congress.

Absolutely horrifying.

What's even worse about it is that little speech would have been rehearsed ahead of time, so having read it, she didn't look the word up before delivering her speech.

She's not the only one. MTG is also there. Gohmert. Is Gohmert the one with the family that hates him? I've lost track at this mess.

[Breccia]

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.

Some of this is new information.

The D.C. Bar's Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition in June to launch disciplinary proceedings against Clark for engaging in dishonesty and interfering with the administration of justice.

Lawyers representing Clark wrote in the filing that on June 20, "approximately a dozen armed agents of the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General executed a criminal search warrant at [Mr. Clark’s] home at around 7 a.m. and seized his electronic devices."

Clark asked the bar to defer his disciplinary proceedings because of the ongoing Justice Department investigation, the House select committee's probe into the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and the Fulton County, Georgia, special grand jury investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The D.C. Bar's Office of Disciplinary Counsel recommended the disciplinary proceedings deferral be denied.

So the question was raised, can you come up with a dumber defense than "You can't convict me because Trump wasn't successfully impeached"? The answer is yes, "You can't kick my ass yet, you'll have to wait in line with everyone else".

[Edge-]

What's even worse about it is that little speech would have been rehearsed ahead of time, so having read it, she didn't look the word up before delivering her speech.

It's especially fun given the source of the quote she's reading from.

[Drutt]

It's especially fun given the source of the quote she's reading from.

The Bible saw Chinese food coming. Prophetic.

[YUPPIE]

I think it's pretty understated (if it was ever mentioned), but Zelenksy seems pretty self-assured Trump isn't coming back to office. He's made a number of recent slandering statements shitting on him as a Putin croney and piece of shit, things that would make for terrible foreign relations if Trump is re-elected.

[Breccia]

The Bible saw Chinese food coming. Prophetic.

It's especially fun given the source of the quote she's reading from.

Rep. Lauren Boebert Mocked For Wanton Abuse Of The English Language

the thing about wonton killings is that you have to be careful where you dumpling the bodies

Pfft. Everyone knows the Wantans were killed by General Tso.

We all teach our kids, “When you don’t know a word - look it up or ask.”

Is this her first night with the Bible??

remember when Dan Quayle misspelled 'potato' and because the American people held politicians to such high standards his career never recovered?

And of course

The best wontons don't have MSG

- - - Updated - - -

I think it's pretty understated--

Hey, have you noticed how you never respond to people when they call you out on questionable or even outright false statements?

[Edge-]

https://apnews.com/article/health-ga...2ac3a7aeb50e55

Republicans, the party of "law and order" are choosing to ignore the ruling of the Minesotta court which rejected their attempt to prevent people from changing the gender on their birth certificate. Wherever you stand on this issue, I think we can agree that Republicans simply ignoring judicial rulings isn't a good thing.

[SoulForge]

https://apnews.com/article/health-ga...2ac3a7aeb50e55

Republicans, the party of "law and order" are choosing to ignore the ruling of the Minesotta court which rejected their attempt to prevent people from changing the gender on their birth certificate. Wherever you stand on this issue, I think we can agree that Republicans simply ignoring judicial rulings isn't a good thing.

And yet they would bitch and complain if a Democrat were to do that. Being the party of law and order after all.

[Draco-Onis]

And yet they would bitch and complain if a Democrat were to do that. Being the party of law and order after all.

Does anyone still buy that law and order line? After 1/6 they are now calling for killing and defunding the FBI for daring to search the property of the fuhrer.