Jump to content

lemonlime

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3474
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lemonlime

  1. 54 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

    Can someone help me (a non lawyer) understand what is really happening.  Technically the government (The current President of the US, DOJ, FBI) says a person (forget for a second that this is Trump) has classified documents and this judge is saying to the government, "I don't believe you when you say they are classified".  Am I understanding this correctly?

    Sort of correctly.  The classification argument is largely a red herring.  That the documents are stamped "classified" is only important because it's obvious without any additional information needed that those documents belong to the federal government.  Whether the documents actually were classified, or trump could have somehow declassified them, or they were misclassified doesn't really matter much.  Trump is arguing he has a personal interest in the documents taken from his home.  He couldn't possibly have a personal interest in something the government has labeled classified.  

    Essentially, trump is arguing he has a personal interest in keeping government documents secret from the government, and the judge is saying that someone needs to look over the documents to figure out if trump somehow has a made up personal interest in keeping government documents from the government. 

    And, yeah, it makes zero sense.

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 1
    • Rage+1 1
  2. 9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I think that's ultimately correct.

    I don't think you can come up with a case cite for it, though.

    Pretty sure there will be one after all this.

    I'm sure there's no case cite, because noone has been stupid enough to argue this before.  But the government's point in their stay motion isn't that the 100 documents (or whatever the number is) are classified.  It's that there were hundreds (thousands?) of pages taken from mar a lago, some of which the executive before Biden occupied that office stamped as "classified."   Trump took documents with this stamp, which we know by virtue of the stamp belong to the executive branch, and which the current executive wants back, and which the current executive, the owner of the documents, says have national security implications.  And not that I'm giving Trump's idiotic declassification argument any weight, but it wouldn't matter at all if it were true.   These are still documents belonging to the executive.  And we know they are because the executive branch put markings on them, marking them as "classified."  And the marking signifies that they contain national security information. And now the executive wants the documents it marked back.

    The documents don't belong to trump.  He isn't king, despite his and Cannon's delusions.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 5
  3. 15 minutes ago, B00M said:

    How is being a select few sent to MV unsafe and chaotic compared to being with the huge numbers, often living outside, at the border waiting to be processed? Yes, this is clearly a political stunt. But to call it dangerous and chaotic, given the journey these people took to reach the border, seems hyperbolic

    So since they've faced worse, we should be able to do whatever isn't as bad as what Maduro's done or what they've already faced at the border. WTF?  The metric on whether we're a just society is whether we're a failed state with a severe food shortage?

    Also, these people were kidnapped. How the fuck isn't it dangerous to allow governors to kidnap people living in other states and transport them to whereever the hell they want?  Never mind that MV does not have social services for these people, and almost the entirety of its jobs are in tourism which is essentially closed for the next eight months.

    • Hook 'Em 5
  4. 3 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

    Lawdogs, how fast will the 11th move on this? 

    They should move fast with the national security implications of this decision, and hear the case next week.  That said, I have less than zero faith in the federal judiciary right now.  And assuming, DOJ win at the 11th Circuit, and they should.  Cannon got a no brainer decision wrong because she's in the bag for trump.  Trump will appeal to SCOTUS, and I have even less faith about what Kav, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Aunt Lydia will do.

    • Like 2
  5. 11 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    If you're willing to dehumanize someone enough to fly them around the country for political stunts, then placing them in cages, torturing them, creating labor camps, etc., isn't as big of a jump as some may think.

    Nope this is fascistic.  The Holocaust started with first dehumanizing Jews, then transporting them away from their homes into ghettos.

     

     

  6. 6 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

    That's the thing of it.  He sends a plane load to Martha's Vineyard.  Those people will have good-paying jobs up there in less than a week.  They'll love it.  And every last one will appear for their immigration hearings.

    Why the taxpayers of the State of Texas should pay for that, however, is a mystery.

    They didn't even tell them where they were going.  And they got sent to an island with few social services, that essentially closes down in September once the tourist season is over. There are just about no jobs there over the winter.  So the people of Massachusetts now will have to pay for their relocation.  It's sociopathic.  But I guess they're owning the libs, so there's that.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  7. 3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    A) How is that even legal?

    B) When DeSantis and Abbott ship illegal immigrants off to other states, what’s to stop those states from shipping them right back?

    I mostly mean B as tongue-in-cheek because it would be inhumane but there ought to be some clever way to retaliate. 

    DeSantis is a sociopath.

    There's no way to retaliate, because these are human beings not political props.

    • Like 1
    • Rage+1 1
  8. Not sure where this goes, although DeSantis has taken "credit" for doing this.  I'm mostly just sad.  That putting 2 year olds on a plane across the country with no warning, no telling them where they're going, or even letting people at the destination know, is applauded by a lot of the country.

    I just keep going back to my father teaching me that a society is based on how it treats those with the least among us. And the right today mocks the "elite" and the libs, but they're actually taking care of these Venezuelan immigrants, many of whom are young children, while the Floridians are pieces of shit reveling in their cruelty.

     

    • Rage+1 2
  9. Thoughts and prayers to Raymond Dearie on the upcoming threats of violence to his family for doing his patriotic duty.
    He's a Reagan guy but from the old wing of the party, not the batshit one.  It won't sit well with many on here, and I can understand why. 

     

    There is no old wing of the party. The entire party is batshit. There’s only the batshit fascists and Americans who aren’t republicans, either because they never were or because they left the party.
    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 2
  10. 53 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

    Please let me know what you would do with someone who murders someone in a robbery at 18 years old.  Let’s say a couple of parents are out on a date, get held up, dad gets shot and dies in robbery.  What would you propose for the 18 yo who committed the crime? 
     

     

    Perfect GQP non sequitur, which deflects from any actual solution to the actual problems.  If you think levying additional criminal penalties against someone who under the current laws already on the books would already serve up to 99 years in prison, and possibly be subject to the death penalty, are appropriate, go for it.  You could also explain how if he served 120 years in prison instead of 99 that would decrease gun violence in any meaningful way.

    All this while ignoring that we have by far the highest incarceration rate in the world, our prisons are essentially really shitty mental health care facilities, and we are churning out people more likely to commit crimes when they can't get jobs/reenter society because they got caught smoking some weed.  All of which has actual impact on gun violence.

    As does the actual proliferation of guns, something you are ignoring.  But hey maybe you'll be able to buy a third boat.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  11. 3 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

    I can’t even parse this. What does she want to happen?  What does consider mean here?

     

     

    It reads to me like a “I don’t really understand what’s going on, so here’s something vague I can say for you to use to tell me something smart.”

    She's a MAGA mouthbreather,  so I'm not defending her, but this order is not surprising.  Both sides were already supposed to submit briefs tomorrow regarding how the special master should work, such as timing of the document review.  She wants the parties to include in those briefs a discussion of the DOJ's motion filed today to keep the classified documents outside of the special master review.

    She may (and I have no faith in her) be laying groundwork to grant the DOJ's motion, and take the off ramp they've provided her.  It'll be interesting to see how trump argues the classified documents could somehow be subject to executive privilege and that he's entitled to them back.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
  12. Odd how we're the country with both the highest incarceration rate on the planet (although Rwanda and Turkmenistan are making a run at us), and the second highest rate of gun deaths of any country.  It's almost as if locking lots of people up doesn't make us safer.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 2
  13. 4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I guess I'm missing what you're trying to argue.

    Are most of these documents, including any subject to a claim of executive privilege, Presidential Records under 44 USC 2201?

    If your answer is yes, then explain how the PRA does not govern the process for asserting executive privilege?  The process only.  Not the outcome of that process, but the process.

    Part of the problem here is that none of us know exactly what documents we're talking about.  Some of that information we'll never know because of the nature of the documents.  But someone has to look at the goddamn things and figure out what's what.  To me, there are advantages to letting a special master do it and then letting the PRA run its course.

     

    Any documents potentially (in the world at large, not just related to trump) subject to executive privilege would be definition be Presidential Records.  The PRA requires that the government possess and control all Presidential Records.  If trump took Presidential Records and hid them in his private office he stole them.  If trump had personal records in his private office, then those aren't subject to executive privilege.  The documents the FBI seized had to either be (1) not ever subject to executive privilege under any circumstance or (2) Presidential Records that trump had no business having in his club in the first place.  Those are the only options.  These are either stolen documents or documents that couldn't possibly subject to executive privilege in the first instance.

    And trump has argued that the FBI planted the documents he's now claiming they can't look at because they're privileged.  And that he somehow magically declassified documents.  That he won the 2020 election in a landslide.  And that windmills cause cancer.  I don't know why you're giving his nonsense arguments weight.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  14. 6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Read the quote before it.  And the final sentence of the above.

    Trump has the right, under common law and the PRA, to assert executive privilege.

    Most of the documents, and all of them subject to executive privilege claims, are Presidential Records and at all times rightfully belonged to the government, regardless of who possessed them.  The PRA almost inescapably applies to them.

    The government, albeit not NARA, proposes to release Presidential Records to the FBI.  Under common law and the PRA, Trump has the right to object to that and assert executive privilege.

    I am not suggesting that the executive privilege claim should prevent their disclosure to the FBI.  In fact, I think the Archivists analysis in the May letter is correct.  This proceeding, however, is a mechanism for sorting the personal from the presidential from the classified from the potentially privileged and then permitting the privilege claim to be asserted and waived or "not upheld" in the parlance of the PRA.

    Those quotes don't change my opinion.  The PRA says the government controls Presidential Records.  But a former president can sue to stop the current executive/archivist from releasing those records.  None of this has any bearing on whether a former president can steal Presidential Records and refuse to return them by claiming executive privilege, which is a tortured reading of the PRA.

    • Hook 'Em 2
×
×
  • Create New...