1. #83001
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    36,876
    Quote Originally Posted by swiftowner View Post
    take what I say with a few grains of salt
    I will, but this is still more/better information than what I had before, thanks.

  2. #83002
    The Unstoppable Force Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    24,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Santti View Post
    I think the fact that we are even debating the legality of it is just nuts. Who actually thinks an ex-president having such documents is ever a good idea?
    Why do soccer fans root for their team’s floppers but actively boo floppers on the other team, when both instances are obvious poor sportsmanship?

    To the GOP this is purely a team sport. If a GOP member can break the law and get away with it and it helps them triumph over a democrat, they’re all for it.


    That’s the point I illustrated about tehdang and co; they’re so afraid of the democrats and the various boogeymen they’ve been told to fear that any republican in place of power, no matter how rankly corrupt, amoral, or incompetent (or in Trump’s case all three) is preferable to any democrat.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  3. #83003
    https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...graham-1743811

    "He could kill fifty people on our side and it wouldn't matter," Graham allegedly told the authors, after noting during the conversation that Trump was a "fun guy" to hang out with.
    Lindsey Graham on Trump's stranglehold on the party. Sure he lies, but he's a fun guy! And he could kill dozens of Republicans and they'd still support him!

    - - - Updated - - -

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/phony-d...p-search-case/

    When a government document mysteriously appeared earlier this week in the highest profile case in the federal court system, it had the hallmarks of another explosive storyline in the Justice Department's investigation into records with classified markings stored at former President Donald Trump's Florida estate.

    The document purported to be from the U.S. Treasury Department, claimed that the agency had seized sensitive documents related to last month's search at Mar-a-Lago and included a warrant ordering CNN to preserve "leaked tax records."

    The document remained late Thursday on the court docket, but it is a clear fabrication. A review of dozens of court records and interviews by The Associated Press suggest the document originated with a serial forger behind bars at a federal prison complex in North Carolina.
    An odd wrinkle. Doesn't seem connected to anything in particular, guys apparently got a history of forging a lot of documents.

    But it does speak to how even our courts are falling for "FAKE NEWS" and receiving/processing forged/fraudulent documents.

    - - - Updated - - -

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ves-clippings/

    Months before National Archives officials found hundreds of classified documents they retrieved from former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club, they were told that none of the material was sensitive or classified and that Trump only had 12 boxes of “news clippings,” according to people familiar with the conversations between Trump’s team and the Archives.

    During a September 2021 phone call with top Archives lawyer Gary Stern, Trump lawyer Pat Philbin offered reassuring news: Philbin said he had talked with former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, who made the assertion about the dozen boxes of clippings, the people familiar with the call said. Trump’s team was aware of no other materials, Philbin said, relaying information he said he got from Meadows.

    The characterization made in the call vastly misrepresented the scale and variety of documents, including classified records, eventually recovered by the Archives or the FBI.
    So Trump's lawyers were either lied to, or lied to the Archives last year. By Meadows and Trump. I do wonder if this is what apparently spurred Meadows to suddenly start complying with the Jan. 6 Committee recently?

  4. #83004
    Legendary! Poopymonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    6,374
    Wish granted.

    Judge gives Trump special master.
    Trump has to foot the bill for the special master also.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok

  5. #83005
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopymonster View Post
    Wish granted.

    Judge gives Trump special master.
    Trump has to foot the bill for the special master also.
    So is the special master going to decline now? Because he knows he is not getting payed if Trump gets the bill.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  6. #83006
    Quote Originally Posted by swiftowner View Post
    I want to say no, but I’m not sure. Generally, the stuff I’m looking to get authorized for, is “Controlled”, meaning only those with explicit authorization to see it, are allowed to, and I *think* the department that creates the document also controls who can handle it. So generally what the document holds is somewhat secret, something that shouldn’t be shared with the wrong people.

    Again, take what I say with a few grains of salt, as I’ve only been introduced to it, I have not yet completed my official training on it. But as it is, there is a whole long, expensive process to get a company to even be allowed to receive those docs, then only those who have completed the training can actually deal with them.
    A FOIA request will not automatically get you Unclassified information. Even that can disrupt national security depending on what it is. When addressing FOIA requests they look at the impact of releasing such information. Sometimes things can be released in a redacted form and sometimes no. There are also certain things that when separate are unclassified but when put together to give a bigger picture that elevates the classification.

    You can google "Security Classification Guidance" and find plenty of PDF's from .gov or .mil sites that give an overview of how it all works. People retake courses Annually on this stuff so you can never say "I didn't know".

  7. #83007
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopymonster View Post
    Wish granted.

    Judge gives Trump special master.
    Trump has to foot the bill for the special master also.
    To follow up on this - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...cuments-review

    US District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, in West Palm Beach, Florida, gave Dearie until Nov. 30 to complete the review of the documents for materials that potentially involve attorney-client confidentiality or the executive privilege afforded presidents.
    There's a pretty tight time limit on this. It's after the midterms and all, read into that what you will, but it seems like it'll still be completed well before the next Congress is sworn in. Not that it would matter that much since this isn't a Congressional investigation into Trump. There's a few of those too, but this is the criminal investigation.

  8. #83008
    Reforged Gone Wrong The Stormbringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ...location, location!
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    To follow up on this - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...cuments-review



    There's a pretty tight time limit on this. It's after the midterms and all, read into that what you will, but it seems like it'll still be completed well before the next Congress is sworn in. Not that it would matter that much since this isn't a Congressional investigation into Trump. There's a few of those too, but this is the criminal investigation.
    November 30th is fucking inexcusable, this so-called judge knows what she did. I would've said the end of October at the latest. There's no way it'll take that long to review those documents if the person in question is putting in at least eight hours a day.

    This is a blatant ploy to stall out the investigation well over TWO MONTHS, when it should be done before one of the most important elections in US history so people know the truth.

  9. #83009
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stormbringer View Post
    This is a blatant ploy to stall out the investigation well over TWO MONTHS, when it should be done before one of the most important elections in US history so people know the truth.
    Donald Trump isn't running in the election, and the DoJ already said they weren't going to proceed until afterwards anyway.

  10. #83010
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    Donald Trump isn't running in the election, and the DoJ already said they weren't going to proceed until afterwards anyway.
    I think the argument is more that this is pushing any law enforcement activity until after the elections, potentially influencing now people vote in the midterms. Which is a valid argument to make to a point, especially considering this isn't technically a "political" matter as Trump is not currently a political candidate and is not running for any offices in the upcoming midterms that would otherwise normally delay law enforcement activity until after the election.

  11. #83011
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    36,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I think the argument is more that this is pushing any law enforcement activity until after the elections, potentially influencing now people vote in the midterms. Which is a valid argument to make to a point, especially considering this isn't technically a "political" matter as Trump is not currently a political candidate and is not running for any offices in the upcoming midterms that would otherwise normally delay law enforcement activity until after the election.
    Trump is almost certainly poised to announce he's running the second he sees the flashing lights outside his house.

  12. #83012
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Trump is almost certainly poised to announce he's running the second he sees the flashing lights outside his house.
    Won't matter once the midterms are over, at least until we get close to the general election in 2024. Hopefully things will wrap up well before then, so let him. At least he can legally raise money for his campaign instead of just having folks send in donations to his PAC slush fund.

  13. #83013
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    74,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Trump is almost certainly poised to announce he's running the second he sees the flashing lights outside his house.
    To repeat a point; any difference in treatment that he may earn either before or after he declares that he's running for office, is the literal definition of "corruption". If you'd delay or avoid prosecution for fear of political fallout, that's what "corruption" is. It's not "avoiding the appearance of partisanship", it's not "reducing election interference", it's just straight-up corruption.


  14. #83014
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    your attempts to defend him are as useless as they are pointless
    Process mistakes were never major in the first place. I didn't understand all the opposition to questions that will be resolved in future court pleadings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    Only responding to the Bold bit. Because this is where you seem extremely confused.
    Things that are covered by Executive Privilige and are documents?

    Those aren't Trumps.
    I reiterate once again that ultimate right of possession is different from what FBI investigative teams can sift through to try and indict Trump on crimes, prior to a court ruling clearing the privilege.

    If they are documents and covered by executive privilige they should be in NARAs hands. Not Trumps. That's where the fucking issue starts.
    Still a question on ultimate right of possession, and not a particularly interesting one at that. This is an FBI criminal investigative stage, not when the archives receives documents it is seeking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    I think @tehdang is huffing the copium really hard that what Trump did was perfectly legal.
    The only people huffing around here are those that insist a ruling on process equates out to some ruling on "what Trump did" and that legality. We had a lawsuit regarding what the DoJ did and didn't do, not a criminal indictment or trial.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    @tehdang

    Typically don't respond
    Let me know when that habit changes, because I'm going to limit my time on replies you might never see.

    1) If it is Executive Privileged documents, then it isn't Trump's as he isn't the president and shouldn't have it. Just like if you were the manager of a company and then quit or got fired, you aren't allowed to take company information with you.
    As I've said before, I'm speaking to sections of a lawsuit regarding process mistakes on the part of the FBI and DoJ. Eventual possession might be interesting to Trump but not me.

    2) If it's classified documents, its not covered under Attorney Client privilege as the lawyers weren't legally allowed to be viewing it anyways and even if Trump showed it to them, that doesn't make it Trumps, just like when you managed the company in #1, if you showed your lawyer trade secrets or stuff covered by security clearance, those documents still belonged to the company and not you.
    I never made claims regarding classified documents and attorney-client privilege.

    3) The claim of Executive Privilege lies completely within the hands of the sitting president, when they are gone, so does the power to claim it. Obama could have revoked it on anything Bush Jr. claimed it on, Trump could have revoked anything Obama claimed it on, Biden can revoke anything Trump claimed it on, and so on. Because those documents didn't belong to any of them but the office itself.
    Supreme Court precedent has the power of executive privilege still remaining after office. Nixon preserved some at the last visit, and it wasn't discussed as only being subject to Carter's permission. We simply don't have case precedent whether it's all passed and gone if the sitting president refuses to exert it (still the obvious danger that the president cannot receive frank advice, because if the admin loses re-election/party possession of White House changes, it's in the open and may be leaked/used/abused)

    I've said it before, but I'll say it again. There could be a ruling in the vein of unitary executive theory that becomes the new precedent on the lines you suggest. Until that's in existence, the DOJ cannot review documents like executive privilege doesn't exist. All these arguments essentially manifest as "X thinks its likely that a future court ruling will determine executive privilege cannot be asserted without the sitting officeholder buying in." That's way more apparent than the more ridiculous "X thinks the DoJ doesn't have to worry about precedent as it is now, because they shouldn't have to wait for a ruling to act."

    4) If he declassified anything while in office, there would be required to have a record of it, no record of it means it didn't ever OFFICIALLY happen.

    5) Even if he did, their standards still require them to treat any documents still labeled as classified as though they were still classified. And those still had the markings.


    6) Not even the president has the authority to declassify information about our nuclear technology, so even if he tried to when he was president, he wouldn't have had the authority to do so.

    7) Even if he declassified the information with a record of it and even if much of it was never classified to begin with, he still would not be allowed to carry the originals of this stuff, he would have been required to turn them over to the archives and at best kept copies of it. He is legally required to turn all that stuff over to keep records and has been a federal law ever since Nixon tried to take his own recordings with him to keep them from being turned over and kept.
    Never argued on any of these points. They might be interesting in the future if Trump is indicted on criminal charges. At present, find somebody that wishes to defend Trump's claims or conduct in this.

    Quote Originally Posted by shimerra View Post
    Nothing I actually said made comment or actually cares whether you specifically commented on those things.
    You replied to me in a manner that suggests it was not a reply to the post. I'm merely pointing it out. You want to go in a different direction.

    You've made multiple comments defending the legality of Trump's actions
    Wrong.
    dishonestly painting the FBI's attempts to retrieve classified American property as illegal/improper
    Twice wrong.
    And you seemed profoundly confused by the very basic concept of Executive privilege so I'm just trying to use the crayon and paper to draw a map to get you to understanding.
    It's a pretty deep issue with intersecting supreme court precedent, so I don't mind helping clear up some of the confusion. I see a lot of people thinking criticism of the DoJ amounts to defense of Trump's actions. I see a lot of confusion about the legality of a search warrant mixed up with the conduct of a document review process. Some of this is expected.


    And because of that it's almost 100% guaranteed those very very basic and key points undermining your rampant defense of your orange God
    Never defended Trump's actions as legal, never said he was likely to beat off a criminal indictment, but always get the knee-jerk reactions in this place. You can not like the guy, but keep a level head about details in lawsuits and orders. You won't get very far with knee-jerk reactions classifying everybody in some "orange God" box.

    it needed to be explained to you that regardless of any shitty defenses you've made of Trump this far, or if you specifically commented on them yet
    You're coming around. Yes, I haven't made comment on things that will have to play out. No, it isn't the same thing as an actual defense of Trump.

    there are numerous issues you're choosing to ignore, obfuscate, or deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent facts.


    So new score 2 points for me and at this point with various penalties your score has to be negative.
    I've focused in on what I've found interesting. The more partisan zealots around here will instantly demand posts-made-in-outrage or bubble over in anti-Trump rhetoric. I observe and post within that underlying reality of the forum. Just know I'm here discussing the topics, and I do hold similar opinions of you and others as you hold of me. I won't repeat them endlessly, because the left-right divide will obviously involve some basic "you're bad, I don't like you, you're lying, you're obfuscating, you're deliberately misunderstanding an misrepresenting facts." It's just the same partisan drivel on a new topic, so we can seriously skip mutual accusations of bad faith, intentional malice, fascism hatred gluttony apostasy and bad taste.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...18763.89.0.pdf

    Standard progression to the special master. DOJ threatened an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit if the judge would not partially reverse her ruling. Cannon did nothing of the kind, but gave her own compromise on just the "approximately 100 documents marked classified" (ordered to prioritize their review ahead of the 11,000). Raymond Dearie will now handle an independent review. And he will consider both executive privilege and attorney client privilege in his review. DoJ might think twice on appealing the decision.
    Last edited by tehdang; 2022-09-17 at 06:03 AM.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  15. #83015
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    36,876
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Process mistakes were never major in the first place
    And yet, you spent the last ten days doing nothing but pushing incorrect stories about how it was major in the first place. You even continue to bring it up as if it's relevant or important in the literal very next line you write.

    By the way, Trump still hasn't taken the stand or signed anything that hit court, so, everything you've argued is still as incorrect as it is hypothetical, and even you are now trying to move the goalposts (again) by saying it's not major. Your posts are therefore summarily handwaved. You have no point. You just admitted it.

  16. #83016
    So, I guess if you're in a position of power in the US, obvious laws suddenly don't apply? They're very specific about how it'd be illegal if he did it, but they distract themselves trying to make "we're the victims!" jokes before they can go on to talk about why its ok for someone like Ted Cruz to do it.

  17. #83017
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    36,876
    The walls are closing in on Donald Trump. NYState continues to press civil and criminal charges against his company, while Trump takes the 5th five hundred times -- basically forfeiting any defense in exchange for not being personally dragged in...yet. The Georgia "find me the votes" case is continuing as well, with only Graham managing to escape. His PAC is under investigation, his CyberTrump 2077 deal is also under investigation and also likely doomed, and the FBI kicked down his door and took back all the government property he stole. All that, and all his friends are having their phones seized and/or being subpoena'd. Legal bills will be high, he has to pay for the "special master" now, and any attempt to do so with his PAC are questionable if (a) the investigation into that was due to misuse of funds and/or (b) Trump announces his candidacy.

    Plus, several members of his legal team are likely going to jail and/or being disbarred. Cohen and Giuliani are likely doing color commentary on the "who is next" list, while Ty Cobb sips a mint julep and smiles knowingly.

    But all is not lost! Six years, six entire years, and finally we see not just a hint, but proof, of a competent legal mind in Trump's entourage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Kise seems too good at this shit to accept anything other than a large pile of cash up-front from Trump. Whether he is a cultist or just wants fame and fortune, there's "I have faith in the process" and there's "I just got fired for taking on an objectively guilty client".
    The WSJ reports that "large pile of cash up front" is three million dollars. But it did come from the PAC.

    Now, maybe paying legal bills to defend you personally from a criminal investigation is somehow okay. I didn't think it was, I didn't think the SEC thought so either. But I think Kise is smart to demand that money up front, not just because Trump doesn't pay people and Kise is apparently not fucking retarded, but because if the PAC isn't allowed to do that, it's not on Kise to return the money. Cohen proved that. Trump has to return the money. Kise still gets paid.

    Incidentally, Kise's cunning goes further. He left his old law firm to start his own, possibly (as we've seen) because lawyers who don't do that tend to be thrown out of their own firms.

    The WSJ has also reported that several of Trump's outreaches to other lawyers failed because, yes, Trump is well-known for not paying and also objectively guilty.

    Related:

    1) Conway, like others, is saying that Trump is going to incite violence if he's arrested. As before, I say "Trump's supporters are cosplay militia with a zero percent success rate. There are some true believers out there ready to take up arms, but not enough to succeed. If they try, they'll get suicide by cop'd and it will be their own fault."

    *ahem*

    Also.

    Literally every person on these forums who even once took a swing at BLM for using violence as a form of protest, even if those claims were false, must immediately say the same thing about any Trump supporter who, for example, fire shots at the FBI. If their issue was violence in the guise of politics, they must do so, or else they're left being hypocritical and racist.

    2) GOP candidates are less and less comfy with campaigning with Trump.

    Trump is preparing to swoop into Ohio on Saturday to rally Republicans behind J.D. Vance in a key Senate race. Two weeks earlier, he did the same for Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania.

    Neither candidate invited him.

    Instead, aides to the former president simply informed the Senate campaigns that he was coming. Never mind that Mr. Trump, while viewed heroically by many Republicans, remains widely disliked among crucial swing voters.

    Some of Mr. Trump’s chosen candidates, after pasting his likeness across campaign literature and trumpeting his seal of approval in television ads during the primaries, are now distancing themselves, backtracking from his positions or scrubbing their websites of his name.

    The moves reflect a complicated political calculus for Republican campaigns, which want to exploit the energy Mr. Trump elicits among his supporters — some of whom rarely show up to the polls unless it is to vote for him — without riling up the independent voters needed to win elections in battleground states.

    In North Carolina, Bo Hines, a Republican House candidate who won his primary in May after proudly highlighting support from Mr. Trump, has deleted the former president’s name and image from his campaign site. A campaign official described the move as part of an overhaul of the website to prioritize issues that are important to general-election voters.

    In Wisconsin, Tim Michels, the Republican nominee for governor, erased from his campaign home page the fact that Mr. Trump had endorsed him — but then restored it after the change was reported, saying it had been a mistake.
    Etc etc you get the idea.

    3) After Chris Christie gave an interview -- why yes, we can add him to the "lawyers who Trump fucked over" pile -- Trump basically went revenge porn on him and fat-shamed him with a picture. I think I have it here...



    No, that's not it...



    No, that's not it either...



    Okay, I know it's around here somewhere. Until then, enjoy these pictures of glass houses.

    4) DWAC is down for the day/week/month again.

    5) More sources are independently verifiying that the Trump family offered to settle with NYState and were turned down. This, again, suggests not only does NYState know they have Trump dead to rights, but that the knows it.

    Trump's usual tactic of bullying weaker opponents with his legal team had a good run, but just because you're top 5 DPS in LFR doesn't mean shit when you're in a Mythic +25. NYState is not a weaker opponent. Neither is the DOJ. I called the Mar-a-Lago not a warning shot, but the starter's pistol, and I might have been even accidentally right at this point. Trump's foes are legion and his defenses are crumbling.

    Actually, I'm wondering if $3 million is enough, at this point. Hey @cubby not that you would, but if a lawyer was willing to basically destroy their entire career for life for an obviously objectively guilty client, how much do you think they should ask for up front? $3 million sounds a little low.

  18. #83018
    I wonder, did NYState turn down a settlement because its not about the money, its about the principle of taking Trump to court or, and I consider this more likely, the amount Trump offered is insulting. Probably because he has no way to pay anything close to the real sum NYState would seek from him.

    I have the feeling, which may totally be wrong ofc, that usually these tax evasion things get settled out of court.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  19. #83019
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    I wonder, did NYState turn down a settlement because its not about the money, its about the principle of taking Trump to court or, and I consider this more likely, the amount Trump offered is insulting. Probably because he has no way to pay anything close to the real sum NYState would seek from him.

    I have the feeling, which may totally be wrong ofc, that usually these tax evasion things get settled out of court.
    Or they have them dead to rights where no amount of money or dragging it out could risk him getting off.

    Think of it this way, there is a murder, you have the suspect on camera committing the act, the gun with his finger prints on it and multiple witnesses with videos of him bragging about it mentioning them by name and how he did it. How eager do you think the police would be to settle that?

    And this is a guy who has been a thorn in their sides for a long time.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  20. #83020
    The Unstoppable Force Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    24,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    I wonder, did NYState turn down a settlement because its not about the money, its about the principle of taking Trump to court or, and I consider this more likely, the amount Trump offered is insulting. Probably because he has no way to pay anything close to the real sum NYState would seek from him.

    I have the feeling, which may totally be wrong ofc, that usually these tax evasion things get settled out of court.
    If NY state was just in it for just getting the money they probably would have simply done a round of offers and counter-offers until they arrived at an adequate settlement.

    I'm all for using Trump's various instances of breaking the law to make an example out of him. The more, the better.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •