A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]

[henrygandorf 29169]

1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

More piling on Trump's ridiculous bunch of bullshit

Thread

 

a part of that thread says that trump basically figured out (or likely was told) that like many other norms or guidelines that govern "presidential behavior", there really isn't any penalty for breaking them, whether intentionally or otherwise.  he knew there was no fine or prison time attached to it, so he didn't care about the "presidential records act" or "emoluments clause" or "not releasing tax returns" or any of the other fucking zillion things he did because he knew he could and get away with it.

we need to turn these precedents and norms into actual laws with actual penalties.  250 years ago everyone assumed everyone else would bring some sort of dignity to the office, but there were shitbags then and they had to know there'd be shitbags now.  it only takes one to ruin the fun for everyone, and we finally got him out of office.

so i'll get on my soapbox for the 10th time - do this shit now, while biden is president.  pass a sweeping set of laws with penalties attached to them, restricting presidents the way people already think they're restricted - with actual stern language, not "well, it's really kinda frowned upon so hey please don't do this, ok?" bullshit. 

a law is not a law unless it has a penalty attached if it's broken, right?   right??

[henrygandorf 29169]

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

This fucking guy. Right off the bat in the introduction, first sentence (from Sidis' link)

 

He had to have largely dictated this shit.

"Let's start with how important I am as President of the United States because we all know that I am."

Eyebrows raise. Trump glowers. Eyebrows return to submissive position.

Trump continues, "Where were we?"

"I think we were still fluffing, Mr. President, sir."
 

 

trump attacks everyone for political reasons.  so when anyone comes back at him, it must therefore, also be political.  obviously.  it's the same shit he does with the press.  call everyone a liar and everything they say an attack, then there's a pox on everyone's houses, nobody is ever clean, both-sides bad, and you can't tell one thing from another.

it's really the smartest strategy he's ever employed.

[Radical Larry 28498]

I don't believe for one second that he knows how to use a computer enough to do that by himself.

[Sawbonz 27296]

 

if she’s one of the ones on camera moving boxes she’s fucked

[aggie08 21292]

Man, is it that hard to put a word into spell check on your phone before throwing it on a protest sign?

[Surly Bevo 24686]

Still too much story and pathetic, now enough downfall....or man.

[cactusflinthead 27588]

@henrygandorf preaching to the choir. Norms don't work. Turtle, Newt, and others set the course for this shit. Trump took it to a level they didn't have the guts to do. 

An ethics mandate with clear and harsh penalties. The founding fathers did not expect to have to insulate the republic from assholes with no shame.

[Gatorubet 30023]

2 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Lindsey Halligan, far left:

The other five are better lawyers. And they’re not lawyers. 

[Satchel 6908]

39 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The guy that did the sedition ran off with 300 state secrets, and then lied about stealing them?

Do I have this right? 

 

Yes.

[Hagbard Celine 10657]

asa hutchinson on cnn just now: if there is not egregious conduct which can not be ignored then this needs to be wrapped up once the documents are returned, whatabout hilary?

 

question

 

what defines egregious conduct which CAN be ignored?

[cactusflinthead 27588]

Asa can fuck off. That chickenshit would raid weed dispensaries again if he could. 

[Gil Bang 25843]

 

 

[Hagbard Celine 10657]

7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

What nuke info would the Saudis be interested in ?

nuke info that's not about nukes

[The Dog 43715]

 

[TwiceHorn 31084]

59 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 

if she’s one of the ones on camera moving boxes she’s fucked

I would have figured Corcoran would have headed up a GJ subpoena response, and he probably did.

But he didn't want to touch that verification with a 10-foot pole.

Edited August 23, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Beau Vine 53845]

32 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

Like the FBI.

 

[Beau Vine 53845]

Is there like, a Republican Money Pool, where you win it by telling the most blatantly-obvious lie of the month to the media?

[Pods 7503]

10 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Is there like, a Republican Money Pool, where you win it by telling the most blatantly-obvious lie of the month to the media?

Do it enough times and you get to be President. 

[Pato del Muerto 52232]

I feel compelled to nominate “flamboyant incompetence” for site motto

[Jack Straw 2953]

4 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

One of them is named Trusty. 

he probably represents Fraud Guaranteed as well 

[Born to Run 6420]

a part of that thread says that trump basically figured out (or likely was told) that like many other norms or guidelines that govern "presidential behavior", there really isn't any penalty for breaking them, whether intentionally or otherwise.  he knew there was no fine or prison time attached to it, so he didn't care about the "presidential records act" or "emoluments clause" or "not releasing tax returns" or any of the other fucking zillion things he did because he knew he could and get away with it.
we need to turn these precedents and norms into actual laws with actual penalties.  250 years ago everyone assumed everyone else would bring some sort of dignity to the office, but there were shitbags then and they had to know there'd be shitbags now.  it only takes one to ruin the fun for everyone, and we finally got him out of office.
so i'll get on my soapbox for the 10th time - do this shit now, while biden is president.  pass a sweeping set of laws with penalties attached to them, restricting presidents the way people already think they're restricted - with actual stern language, not "well, it's really kinda frowned upon so hey please don't do this, ok?" bullshit. 
a law is not a law unless it has a penalty attached if it's broken, right?   right??

Yes, this should have been Day one shit, along with further sensible limits on the executive and codified rules and laws instead of "norms". Before you lose power dummies.

[henrygandorf 29169]

7 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

Yes, this should have been Day one shit, along with further sensible limits on the executive and codified rules and laws instead of "norms". Before you lose power dummies.

but instead, they'll wait until 2027, during trump part 2 and the congress is heavy blue, and he'll say, "look see, they never stop coming after me".

and i'll turn to my fuckbot 5000 and say "stop crying, it's business time."

[YChang 3425]

“a?”

Would be hilarious if the DSM/APA had a personality disorder named after Trump.

[Biff Tannen 45439]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

a part of that thread says that trump basically figured out (or likely was told) that like many other norms or guidelines that govern "presidential behavior", there really isn't any penalty for breaking them, whether intentionally or otherwise.  he knew there was no fine or prison time attached to it, so he didn't care about the "presidential records act" or "emoluments clause" or "not releasing tax returns" or any of the other fucking zillion things he did because he knew he could and get away with it.

we need to turn these precedents and norms into actual laws with actual penalties.  250 years ago everyone assumed everyone else would bring some sort of dignity to the office, but there were shitbags then and they had to know there'd be shitbags now.  it only takes one to ruin the fun for everyone, and we finally got him out of office.

so i'll get on my soapbox for the 10th time - do this shit now, while biden is president.  pass a sweeping set of laws with penalties attached to them, restricting presidents the way people already think they're restricted - with actual stern language, not "well, it's really kinda frowned upon so hey please don't do this, ok?" bullshit. 

a law is not a law unless it has a penalty attached if it's broken, right?   right??

This is kinda the perfect post.  Like, for real.  Voting rights is maybe a close second, but for what we are facing right now, yeah, this probably should be a priority.

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

The other five are better lawyers. And they’re not lawyers. 

They can file their briefs with me anytime. 

[The Dog 43715]

 

[Chopper 17055]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The notion of a special master isn't that far-fetched, at least in the context of attorney-client privileged stuff.  It happened in the Cohen warrant, largely because that was a search warrant executed at a lawyer's office.  I'm not so sure about executive privileged stuff.

It was filed 2 weeks after the search after the FBI has certainly gone through every document they searched. You seem to believe this latest response is a legitimate legal response but I can't tell why.

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

He loses a bit of credibility with the venue thing.  It's clearly filed in the SD Fla, which is where the warrant was applied for and executed.

What is somewhat less clear to me is if there needs to be a pending civil or criminal suit in which to make this motion.

Do you know of a motion possible after a search other than a motion to suppress (and the demand for a special master to sort through documents that may be confidential due to client confidentiality)? A motion to suppress wouldn't come until there's a charge filed by the gov't. though, and it sure wouldn't be filed as a stand-alone lawsuit or filing, not attached to the original warrant, as team dotard filed. Also Trump isn't a lawyer so he has zero grounds to complain about client confidentiality and his legal team seems confused between classified documents and legal confidentiality. Why they are so confused is probably going to be interesting, should we plebes ever get to find out.

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

a part of that thread says that trump basically figured out (or likely was told) that like many other norms or guidelines that govern "presidential behavior", there really isn't any penalty for breaking them, whether intentionally or otherwise.  he knew there was no fine or prison time attached to it, so he didn't care about the "presidential records act" or "emoluments clause" or "not releasing tax returns" or any of the other fucking zillion things he did because he knew he could and get away with it.

we need to turn these precedents and norms into actual laws with actual penalties.  250 years ago everyone assumed everyone else would bring some sort of dignity to the office, but there were shitbags then and they had to know there'd be shitbags now.  it only takes one to ruin the fun for everyone, and we finally got him out of office.

There are 2 men currently being held in federal prison for doing something similar to what trump did with stolen top secret documents, Hal Martin and Joshua Schulte. Each was a government employee who stole top secret documents. I'd say we've never had a president who was willing to break any law they found inconvenient until Trump. Nixon may have been willing to break any law but at least back then there were prominent members of the republican party who gave a shit about anything besides seizing power and therefore stood in his way.

33 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I would have figured Corcoran would have headed up a GJ subpoena response, and he probably did.

But he didn't want to touch that verification with a 10-foot pole.

If Corcoran is a half-decent attorney the only explanation for his name being on that filing is that they slapped his signature on there either without his authorization or reading the document.

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

He loses a bit of credibility with the venue thing.  It's clearly filed in the SD Fla, which is where the warrant was applied for and executed.

What is somewhat less clear to me is if there needs to be a pending civil or criminal suit in which to make this motion.

i think he meant to say division, not district.  local rules will determine whether the filing is proper.  
 

second, it’s neither a response or a complaint given it’s deficiencies.  however, there’s a clue what was intended…it’s in the style of the case.  
 

do you see it?   

[TwiceHorn 31084]

30 minutes ago, Chopper said:

It was filed 2 weeks after the search after the FBI has certainly gone through every document they searched. You seem to believe this latest response is a legitimate legal response but I can't tell why.

Do you know of a motion possible after a search other than a motion to suppress (and the demand for a special master to sort through documents that may be confidential due to client confidentiality)? A motion to suppress wouldn't come until there's a charge filed by the gov't. though, and it sure wouldn't be filed as a stand-alone lawsuit or filing, not attached to the original warrant, as team dotard filed. Also Trump isn't a lawyer so he has zero grounds to complain about client confidentiality and his legal team seems confused between classified documents and legal confidentiality. Why they are so confused is probably going to be interesting, should we plebes ever get to find out.

There are 2 men currently being held in federal prison for doing something similar to what trump did with stolen top secret documents, Hal Martin and Joshua Schulte. Each was a government employee who stole top secret documents. I'd say we've never had a president who was willing to break any law they found inconvenient until Trump. Nixon may have been willing to break any law but at least back then there were prominent members of the republican party who gave a shit about anything besides seizing power and therefore stood in his way.

If Corcoran is a half-decent attorney the only explanation for his name being on that filing is that they slapped his signature on there either without his authorization or reading the document.

I said it wasn't "that far-fetched." I didn't say it was legitimate.  If left to their own devices, the FBI would be the sole arbiter of what gets kept from investigators on privilege grounds and the corollary question what does Trump get back.  In that sense, it's semi-legit.  From a cat out of the bag sense, it is certainly late.

The motion only asserts executive privilege, not attorney-client.  Attorney-client privilege I think occupies a more sacrosanct position than executive privilege.  I think executive privilege exists mostly as a separation of powers issue, to keep Congress out of the executive's business, but when it comes to a criminal investigation, executive yields even more easily than attorney client privilege under the crime-fraud exception:  if it is evidence of a crime, the privilege yields, period.

Also, somewhat hilariously, by alleging that the documents taken are executive privileged, that's a judicial admission that the documents belong in the custody of NARA under the PRA, and also that the PRA governs how the privilege should be treated, and gives almost all that discretion to the sitting President, not the former one.  See, e.g. Trump v. Thompson, et al. 

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/913002F9EFB94590852587A60075CC4F/%24file/21-5254-1926128.pdf

And, unlike search warrants executed at lawyers' offices, there's not a lot of third-party potentially privileged material, which is the primary concern when appointing a special master.

Edited August 23, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31084]

17 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

i think he meant to say division, not district.  local rules will determine whether the filing is proper.  
 

second, it’s neither a response or a complaint given it’s deficiencies.  however, there’s a clue what was intended…it’s in the style of the case.  
 

do you see it?   

Yeah, you might think he's have to commence a civil action for this, but I'm not really sure.  I'd think it would have to be directed to the magistrate issuing the warrant, at least initially.

There's a sizable docket, already, for the sealing and unsealing of the search warrant.https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64872441/united-states-v-sealed-search-warrant/  That would seem like where this belongs.

It's a messy thing, on multiple levels, and doesn't reek of competence.

Edited August 23, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Chopper 17055]

Good news, everyone. I found the opposite angle photo. Nothing shocking though it brings a lot of new, interesting analysis to light.

 

[Bullneck 18959]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

Forgetting about the record number of lies spoken in that "news" for just a second, when did the Washington Monument start leaning?

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20332]

51 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Axelrod is very impressive. I loved to hear him say "Trump has become an albatross on the Republican party even after he's getting stronger within the party.

 

[tx 3 putt 75959]

32 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Good news, everyone. I found the opposite angle photo. Nothing shocking though it brings a lot of new, interesting analysis to light.

 

 

the lawyer chick has no ass, hard pass

[Chopper 17055]

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I said it wasn't "that far-fetched." I didn't say it was legitimate.  If left to their own devices, the FBI would be the sole arbiter of what gets kept from investigators on privilege grounds and the corollary question what does Trump get back.  In that sense, it's semi-legit.  From a cat out of the bag sense, it is certainly late.

The motion only asserts executive privilege, not attorney-client.  Attorney-client privilege I think occupies a more sacrosanct position than executive privilege.  I think executive privilege exists mostly as a separation of powers issue, to keep Congress out of the executive's business, but when it comes to a criminal investigation, executive yields even more easily than attorney client privilege under the crime-fraud exception:  if it is evidence of a crime, the privilege yields, period.

Also, somewhat hilariously, by alleging that the documents taken are executive privileged, that's a judicial admission that the documents belong in the custody of NARA under the PRA, and also that the PRA governs how the privilege should be treated, and gives almost all that discretion to the sitting President, not the former one.  See, e.g. Trump v. Thompson, et al. 

 

Yeah that's what I meant that they conflate the two terms, perhaps on purpose, perhaps from sheer incompetence. There's no special master required to sort through classified documents, as you wrote, only attorney-client privileged documents, and trump would have to show why he, a non-attorney, would require a special master. The legal filing doesn't state a reason, doesn't state a precedent, and doesn't even pass the logic test. Never mind that the documents have already been gone through because he's 2 weeks late in his big 4th Amendment claim. It's a joke. The documents belong to the gov't and the exec privilege belongs to the current president. The former president has zero executive privilege. Trump dictated at least half of that filing -- it even refers to "my residence" -- but he's now obligated DOJ to respond and it's going to result in him getting absolutely slammed in their response.

[Pods 7503]

Photos of Christina Bobb in the war room at the Willard on Jan 6th with Giuliani and Eastman. 

[Gil Bang 25843]

 

 

[Chopper 17055]

 

[Chopper 17055]

Holy shit the letter spelled it all out so that even a complete moron should have been able to understand. Spoilered for length.

Spoiler

May 10, 2022
Evan Corcoran Silverman Thompson 400 East Pratt Street Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202 By Email
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
I write in response to your letters of April 29, 2022, and May 1, 2022, requesting that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) further delay the disclosure to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the records that were the subject of our April 12, 2022 notification to an authorized representative of former President Trump.

As you are no doubt aware, NARA had ongoing communications with the former President’s representatives throughout 2021 about what appeared to be missing Presidential records, which resulted in the transfer of 15 boxes of records to NARA in January 2022. In its initial review of materials within those boxes, NARA identified items marked as classified national security information, up to the level of Top Secret and including Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Program materials. NARA informed the Department of Justice about that discovery, which prompted the Department to ask the President to request that NARA provide the FBI with access to the boxes at issue so that the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community could examine them. On April 11, 2022, the White House Counsel’s Office—affirming a request from the Department of Justice supported by an FBI letterhead memorandum—formally transmitted a request that NARA provide the FBI access to the 15 boxes for its review within seven days, with the possibility that the FBI might request copies of specific documents following its review of the boxes.

Although the Presidential Records Act (PRA) generally restricts access to Presidential records in NARA’s custody for several years after the conclusion of a President’s tenure in office, the statute further provides that, “subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke,” such records “shall be made available . . . to an incumbent President if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available.” 44 U.S.C. §

 2205(2)(B). Those conditions are satisfied here. As the Department of Justice’s National Security Division explained to you on April 29, 2022:
There are important national security interests in the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community getting access to these materials. According to NARA, among the materials in the boxes are over 100 documents with classification markings, comprising more than 700 pages. Some include the highest levels of classification, including Special Access Program (SAP) materials. Access to the materials is not only necessary for purposes of our ongoing criminal investigation, but the Executive Branch must also conduct an assessment of the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported and take any necessary remedial steps. Accordingly, we are seeking immediate access to these materials so as to facilitate the necessary assessments that need to be conducted within the Executive Branch.

 

We advised you in writing on April 12 that, “in light of the urgency of this request,” we planned to “provid[e] access to the FBI next week,” i.e., the week of April 18. See Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 2(b), 74 Fed. Reg. 4,669 (Jan. 21, 2009) (providing a 30-day default before disclosure but authorizing the Archivist to specify “a shorter period of time” if “required under the circumstances”); accord 36 C.F.R. § 1270.44(g) (“The Archivist may adjust any time period or deadline under this subpart, as appropriate, to accommodate records requested under this section.”). In response to a request from another representative of the former President, the White House Counsel’s Office acquiesced in an extension of the production date to April 29, and so advised NARA. In accord with that agreement, we had not yet provided the FBI with access to the records when we received your letter on April 29, and we have continued to refrain from providing such access to date.

It has now been four weeks since we first informed you of our intent to provide the FBI access to the boxes so that it and others in the Intelligence Community can conduct their reviews. Notwithstanding the urgency conveyed by the Department of Justice and the reasonable extension afforded to the former President, your April 29 letter asks for additional time for you to review the materials in the boxes “in order to ascertain whether any specific document is subject to privilege,” and then to consult with the former President “so that he may personally make any decision to assert a claim of constitutionally based privilege.” Your April 29 letter further states that in the event we do not afford you further time to review the records before NARA discloses them in response to the request, we should consider your letter to be “a protective assertion of executive privilege made by counsel for the former President.”
The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President’s purported “protective assertion of executive privilege.” See 36 C.F.R. § 1270.44(f)(3). Accordingly, I have consulted with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel to inform my “determination as to whether to honor the former President’s claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege.” Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 4(a).

 The Assistant Attorney General has advised me that there is no precedent for an assertion of executive privilege by a former President against an incumbent President to prevent the latter from obtaining from NARA Presidential records belonging to the Federal Government where “such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available.” 44 U.S.C. § 2205(2)(B).

To the contrary, the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), strongly suggests that a former President may not successfully assert executive privilege “against the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked.” Id. at 447-48. In Nixon v. GSA, the Court rejected former President Nixon’s argument that a statute requiring that Presidential records from his term in office be maintained in the custody of, and screened by, NARA’s predecessor agency—a “very limited intrusion by personnel in the Executive Branch sensitive to executive concerns”—would “impermissibly interfere with candid communication of views by Presidential advisers.” Id. at 451; see also id. at 455 (rejecting the claim). The Court specifically noted that an “incumbent President should not be dependent on happenstance or the whim of a prior President when he seeks access to records of past decisions that define or channel current governmental obligations.” Id. at 452; see also id. at 441-46 (emphasizing, in the course of rejecting a separation-of-powers challenge to a provision of a federal statute governing the disposition of former President Nixon’s tape recordings, papers, and other historical materials “within the Executive Branch,” where the “employees of that branch [would] have access to the materials only ‘for lawful Government use,’” that “[t]he Executive Branch remains in full control of the Presidential materials, and the Act facially is designed to ensure that the materials can be released only when release is not barred by some applicable privilege inherent in that branch”; and concluding that “nothing contained in the Act renders it unduly disruptive of the Executive Branch”).

 

It is not necessary that I decide whether there might be any circumstances in which a former President could successfully assert a claim of executive privilege to prevent an Executive Branch agency from having access to Presidential records for the performance of valid executive functions. The question in this case is not a close one. The Executive Branch here is seeking access to records belonging to, and in the custody of, the Federal Government itself, not only in order to investigate whether those records were handled in an unlawful manner but also, as the National Security Division explained, to “conduct an assessment of the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported and take any necessary remedial steps.” These reviews will be conducted by current government personnel who, like the archival officials in Nixon v. GSA, are “sensitive to executive concerns.” Id. at 451. And on the other side of the balance, there is no reason to believe such reviews could “adversely affect the ability of future Presidents to obtain the candid advice necessary for effective decisionmaking.” Id. at 450. To the contrary: Ensuring that classified information is appropriately protected, and taking any necessary remedial action if it was not, are steps essential to preserving the ability of future Presidents to “receive the full and frank submissions of facts and opinions upon which effective discharge of [their] duties depends.” Id. at 449.

Because an assertion of executive privilege against the incumbent President under these circumstances would not be viable, it follows that there is no basis for the former President to make a “protective assertion of executive privilege,” which the Assistant Attorney General informs me has never been made outside the context of a congressional demand for information from the Executive Branch. Even assuming for the sake of argument that a former President may under some circumstances make such a “protective assertion of executive privilege” to preclude the Archivist from complying with a disclosure otherwise prescribed by 44 U.S.C. § 2205(2), there is no predicate for such a “protective” assertion here, where there is no realistic basis that the requested delay would result in a viable assertion of executive privilege against the incumbent President that would prevent disclosure of records for the purposes of the reviews described above. Accordingly, the only end that would be served by upholding the “protective” assertion here would be to delay those very important reviews.

I have therefore decided not to honor the former President’s “protective” claim of privilege. See Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 4(a); see also 36 C.F.R. 1270.44(f)(3) (providing that unless the incumbent President “uphold[s]” the claim asserted by the former President, “the Archivist discloses the Presidential record”). For the same reasons, I have concluded that there is no reason to grant your request for a further delay before the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community begin their reviews. Accordingly, NARA will provide the FBI access to the records in question , as requested by the incumbent President, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12, 2022.

Please note that, in accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C. § 2205(3), the former President’s designated representatives can review the records, subject to obtaining the appropriate level of security clearance. Please contact my General Counsel, Gary M. Stern, if you would like to discuss the details of such a review, such as you proposed in your letter of May 5, 2022, particularly with respect to any unclassified materials.
Sincerely,
DEBRA STEIDEL WALL
Acting Archivist of the United States

Hilarious. Stunning. Tragic. Enraging.

[henrygandorf 29169]

lawyers here and on twitter are twisting themselves into knots trying to figure out "what are they thinking?"

they are not thinking.  they're not trying to think.  they're not trying to get anything accomplished legally.  their plan is to delay and distract.  it will work.  it always works.  it's working already.

everyone is pointing at the bomb squad in die hard 3 without noticing what the fucking garbage trucks are doing.

 

edit - were they dump trucks?  i can't remember that movie is so fucking long.

Edited August 24, 2022 by henrygandorf
dump?

[Chopper 17055]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

they are not thinking.  they're not trying to think.  they're not trying to get anything accomplished legally.  their plan is to delay and distract.  it will work.  it always works.  it's working already.

There's no evidence to even suggest their strategy is working. To the contrary it appears their strategy is digging them a huge legal liability and forcing the DOJ's hand to come at him full throttle. You think that just because he's not already locked up and behind bars, his strategy is working? Even in the case of Michael Cohen, it was months after the initial search before he was charged. The wheels of justice grind slowly; this is not new. Trump's strategy of whining, moaning and filing nonsensical legal claims is doing nothing other than to wrap the rope around his neck even tighter.

[Willfully Horn 7911]

9 minutes ago, Chopper said:

There's no evidence to even suggest their strategy is working. To the contrary it appears their strategy is digging them a huge legal liability and forcing the DOJ's hand to come at him full throttle. You think that just because he's not already locked up and behind bars, his strategy is working? Even in the case of Michael Cohen, it was months after the initial search before he was charged. The wheels of justice grind slowly; this is not new. Trump's strategy of whining, moaning and filing nonsensical legal claims is doing nothing other than to wrap the rope around his neck even tighter.

[henrygandorf 29169]

21 minutes ago, Chopper said:

There's no evidence to even suggest their strategy is working.

there's less evidence to suggest that it's not.

[Dutchrudder 11087]

I would imagine Trump and team are waiting for a Republican to take back the Presidency so he and his buddies can get a pardon and be done with all this mess. The longer it takes to prosecute, the less likely he is to ever see a jail cell, at this rate they might not even finish the trial by the January 2025. 

[henrygandorf 29169]

3 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

I would imagine Trump and team are waiting for a Republican to take back the Presidency so he and his buddies can get a pardon and be done with all this mess. The longer it takes to prosecute, the less likely he is to ever see a jail cell, at this rate they might not even finish the trial by the January 2025. 

he wants to get thru the midterms.  then he can formally announce.  then he can go make speeches and say, "can you believe what democrats are doing to the frontrunner for the republican party nomination?  they're scared of me, because i'm the best president and this will be my 3rd victory in a row."

the closer he comes to being a candidate, the more he can say "this is political" and sound like it's accurate.  it's not about having everyone believe the lie, it's about having enough people believe the lie.

[RPM 26167]

On 8/20/2022 at 8:47 PM, The Original Greaser Bob said:

You'll be fine.  I recommend a safe space up near the ridge if the neighbors get especially prickly.

[immamac 42388]

Man, remember when someone shot off their mouth that the GOP was distancing itself from Trump and told him they’d stop paying legal fees if he didn’t back off and then I said “lol the GOP can’t get away from trump he will drag them down with him” and then that same someone doubled down and told me I had no idea what I was talking about. Cuz I ‘member. 

[Pig Bellmont 8664]

 

[DigglerontheHoof 20963]

15 minutes ago, immamac said:

Man, remember when someone shot off their mouth that the GOP was distancing itself from Trump and told him they’d stop paying legal fees if he didn’t back off and then I said “lol the GOP can’t get away from trump he will drag them down with him” and then that same someone doubled down and told me I had no idea what I was talking about. Cuz I ‘member. 

Yep.  They'll either ride him until they achieve a fascist state or he'll drag them all down w/ him.

Unfortunately, I still believe it'll be the former, not the later. 

[Pig Bellmont 8664]

So Trump illegally stole about 1000 documents, including those with the top most security classification in government. Back in January, the government recovered 700.
 

Then sometime after this May letter, a Trump attorney signed an affidavit that lied and said all material was given back, and the DOJ then obtained MAL security footage. When the search warrant was executed, an additional *300* documents were found. 
 

I shouldn’t be shocked with Trump, but this is shocking.