Why is it exactly that whenever you have a politically charged legal situation that suddenly every political pundit becomes some sort of legal expert? Why is it also nearly 100% true that liberal political pundits believe their legal logic so sound as to not require a single law, a single court ruling, or any historical precedent to make an argument. Why is it that so many liberal Americans are so willing to take these non-legal assertions, without a sound legal argument, from non-legal people at face value without question? Then get upset if someone else fails to accept the assertions as fact?
I follow a lot of legal people on line. Have for some time since we have always seem to have some sort of politically charged legal issues going all the way back to the Clinton administration. I generally try to find people who turn out to be right most of the time rather than simply tell me what I might want to hear. I also tend to follow people who argue statutes, argue case law, argue superior court precedents, and prosecutorial precedent.
I find arguments that can break down a criminal statute, or clarify a USSC ruling, or find examples of similar situations to be compelling. I find people (especially those who are not attorneys) who just make assertions or provide a non-legal opinion uncompelling. Not sure why this is hard to understand or why someone would fail to accept that this is how I process these things. As someone who troubleshoots complex financial and programming issues I do not have the luxury of taking people at their word.
On the flip side, I understand why liberals especially would listen to "assertions" made by non-legal journalists, even if those "assertions" have no actual legal backing. It's called partisanship, bias confirmation, and cognitive dissonance.
Since this whole Mar-a-Lago Presidential records issue has becomes a thing, I have read much from my legal sources about the 1978 Presidential act and how it works. I have read about Morton v Mancari, Navy v Egan, and Judicial Watch v National Archives, and others. But each of the cases I have read about are relative to the issue at hand. Which of course is Presidential records, declassification, and ultimately questions about privilege.
Meanwhile, I have not seen much of a compelling legal argument that counters much of these. Just an assumption (even from a couple of my own sources) that the FBI may very well charge Trump for obstruction and that a DC Court will probably find him guilty.
That being said, I have yet to see anyone I follow state that the DOJ "should" charge him, just that they might. Moreover I have yet to see any previous court cases that suggest that there is any legal precedent for such a charge. In fact, one of the many cases that have been brought up was Judicial Watch v National Archives. This was an attempt to get Clinton to turn over some tape recordings that were thought to have highly sensitive information that were still in his possession. The DC Court of Appeals set the precedent. The President (not the Archives) has the final say on what is Presidential and what is Personal.
Right now the argument has been about a search and what every one of my sources suggested was a dangerously broad and likely unconstitutional search based on a shaky warrant. The fact that the Trump legal team is simply trying (at this point) to get his personal belongings and personal papers back from the FBI and is just requesting a special master (rather than challenging the warrant) suggests that they do not want to escalate this now. But if the DOJ decides to bring charges, I suspect that this will be a legal battle that will end up settled at the USSC level. It almost has to be.
I have seens a pretty compelling argument based on the law, superior court opinions, and legal precedent that suggests that while this might be "slam dunk" if it gets to a DC jury, that it might not ever see a courtroom. I have yet to see anything of the same from the left. Generally just emotional angry mean spirited anti-Trump opinions that are put forward in such a manner that suggest there is no use in challenging them with any reason.
39 comments:
There's no legal basis for any of this. There never was. The goal here is simply to prohibit Trump from running in '24 by any means necessary. A bullshit conviction by a bullshit DC jury based upon bullshit charges is what's required to make Trump not eligible to run.
Nothing resembling the rule of law is at issue here. What IS at issue here is protecting the sinecures of hundreds of thousands of government parasites.
For example... it's almost impossible to find consistency in the rulings regarding Clients being held responsible for Attorney's actions.
The reason I am looking this up is that the key element that the DOJ would need to use to charge Trump with obstruction would be a letter sent by his attorney to the FBI saying there was no more classified documents. Was this sent at Trump's behalf? Did Trump also sign the letter? Was there some element or statement of sworn affidavit to the claim?
I am sort of surprised that nobody has really brought this sort of question up as it would seem relevant. There are also plenty of times when a client was not held responsible for things his attorney did on his/her behalf if that person was not directed to do so.
It might just be assumed that Trump told the attorney to do so. But the Trump insider word is that Trump has been pretty much ignoring much of this and leaving it to others to sort out. Acting as if he has better things to do (which might be why this has drug out so long). Trump simply doesn't see it as worth his bother to go through these documents. Does anyone really believe he knows what is there (other than the 3 items he had in his desk)?
"Angry" and "mean spirited" Ch calls criticism of Trump.
Numerous of Trump's own advisers kept warning him that he simply MUST turn over ALL the stash of documents he was still holding on to, and doing that even after the FBI repeatedly kept asking for ALL of them.
But Trump flat-out refused to do so even when approached by his former deputy White House counsel, Patrick Philbin.
And that was not the only time.
Numerous other aides told him the same thing and will surely be forced to testify under oath that Trump kept repeatedly saying about the boxes and boxes of still illegally retained documents, including some marked classified,
"it's not theirs, it's mine."
Take THAT into court for under oath testimony.
But I guess Ch sees nothing "angry" or "mean spirited" in Trump's lawless refusal.
No, it's not only about Trump in 24. The level of hatred for Trump on the left is so great, that he is now their rallying cry. Their favorite punching bag. If they could, they'd support impeaching him 2 or 3 more times because it's fun. They absolutely ache for an indictment. I know democrats who have cut off all contact with old friends simply because the friends voted for Trump. That's crazy.
Reverend...
Do you have a legal precedent for a President being charged with a crime over Presidential records?
Do you have a Court opinion that overrules Judicial Watch v National Archives or Navy vs Egan?
Do you see something in the 1978 Presidential Act that does not suggest that all Presidential papers are considered privileged for 5 years?
Or do you just have "assertions" made by people who cannot make a legal argument? Can they make these "assertions" without (as you did in your previous post) suggesting irrelevant or even unproven information? Without anonymous sources talking about not-quotable things from people with no names?
Can you make your argument in such a manner where you don't act as if Trump was not a real President entitled to the same respect, privilege, and authority that the courts have given previous Presidents in these sorts of disputes?
Seriously... Even if the "assertion" is true that "every advisor" mistakenly stated that he was "legally obligated" to do what the courts declared Clinton did not have to do...
That is not a legal argument.
What do you got Reverend?
Something not cut and pasted and something that provides us with a legal precedent of some sort?
Anything?
No. He just wants Trump to be center stage...at least until the elections. So he'll keep obsessively talking about him.
What do you got Reverend?
Something not cut and pasted and something that provides us with a legal precedent of some sort?
Anything?
#PedoHitler how fitting for the “reverend”
LOL
You don't need a "legal precedent" for behavior as outragieous as Trump's, Ch.
No other president would have dared do any of this. Eisenhower repeatedly asked his lawyers whether his actions were lawful, and kept them that way.
You don't need a "legal precedent" for behavior as outragieous as Trump's,
I think you need to actually prove something is "outrageous" before you can claim it so. Since we have had Presidents keep secret tapes in their sock drawers and still win (legally) when brought to court over it... not sure how this is "outrageous" by precedent.
We have a law, Reverend. The 1978 Presidential Records Act.
Contrary to popular argument it does not suggest that Presidential records be immediately turned over to anyone because then there would never be "Presidential records". The law does not state that the President pack everything up and provide to the National Archives. If that is what how they wanted it done, then that is what the law would state. The Archives would have a warehouse and would be the destination. It wouldn't allow a President to take anything "with him".
Rather the law provides for the President to take the records. The law (and court precedent) allows the President to make determinations on what to send to the Archives and what is personal. There is no "timeline".
Remember, Reverend. Nobody thought this was a big deal for the first year he had the records at Mar-a-Lago.
Moreover the LAW states that those records are privileged to the former President for five years?
What is more outrageous here? The fact that Trump has records that are legally privileged to him for five years... or the fact that The FBI used false information in a warrant to justify taking all of the records and other personal items from the President... technically in violation of the 1978 Presidential act?
Precedent matters.
Only way to determine if something is even outside the norms is precedent.
Outrageous is your opinion. Good for you!
But it doesn't sound like any legal argument.
Which you are apparently incapable of making here.
If prosecutors are staved off because the subject is a politician who might be running for office, then we actually have given in to politicization. And we’ve begun to create a class of citizens in this country who are above the law.
We can't let that happen.
Roger...
Just provide ONE President ever who has been charged by the FBI over handling of classified documents. Any old President will do. We have had 46 of them. Every one of them worked with Classified Documents. Every one of them in our lifetime took them home.
Just one single charge Roger?
Then talk to me about the politicization of our prosecution.
I'll wait. And don't bother posting the same thing again. I won't publish it. I will wait for your example.
Because you have become a cultists it's been impossible to have a rational argument.
History shows that and in Europe it's getting worse again.
And for the first time in America history our nation is in danger than even the civil war because they are bending the rules.
And we’ve begun to create a class of citizens in this country who are above the law.
Hillary Clinton and the entire cast of characters who orchestrated Crossfire Hurricane are oddly not available for comment.
Nice job stealing fro the Guardian, alky. You're a hack AND a liar AND a thief.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/02/trump-mar-a-lago-search-doj-photos
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
Garland may be able to make the case against Donald Trump and show knowing concealment. Yet, with Hillary Clinton selling “But Her Emails” hats at $30 a pop, he will have to explain the prospect of one politician going to jail while the other goes retail.
https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1566380050106224641?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1566380050106224641%7Ctwgr%5Eb51405285f0863d57598adf9fd39bf9f34220fa0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsamj-3930%2F2022%2F09%2F04%2Fjonathan-turley-points-out-how-hillary-may-actually-keep-garland-from-making-a-case-against-trump-and-the-left-cant-deeeal%2F
You were saying, alky?
If prosecutors are staved off because the subject is a politician who might be running for office, then we actually have given in to politicization.
Alky the government employees James Comey whom deliberately staved off persecution of Cankles had Peter Strzok LYING about Russian interference
Fuck you
Roger...
Biden is in charge, not Trump. The DOJ and the FBI are under his control. They are "bending the rules". This is not the first time they fudged a warrant to go after Trump.
Did you listen to your President attack conservative Americans the other night. Basically acting as if they need to be rounded up and put away in containment camps for being "anti-American"?
This shit is entirely on your side.
Live with your hate.
Blogger Coldheartedtruth Teller said...
Because you have become a cultists it's been impossible to have a rational argument.
Cough up the example CH is requesting alky.
Or just shut the fuck up.
Can't argue with someone who believes that this is false claims.
Biden said that while "not even a majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans" and "not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology," the GOP today is "dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country."
About 10%
Roger...
A vast majority of Republicans and 53% of the American public believe that the 2020 election was fraudulent to the point where it affected the outcome.
When you specifically tell 53% of Americans that they are extreme and dangerous... then watch out for the repercussions.
The problem is that you and the Reverend and other liberals have been gaslighted by Biden, Democrats, and the media into believing that the election "deniers" are this small slice of Americans.
The true "deniers" are people like you who believe you can prove something didn't happen by not looking for it or not accepting what is found.
If someone continually posts that maga Republicans are dangerous to the country, why won't he tell us why? He keeps saying it but never supports his assertion. Just tell us why? Be factual. Maybe you'll convince someone.
Hey, Ch, there was a time when a vast majority of Americans were willing to allow slavery in this country, or we would not have had it.
But another matter about democracy in action:
_______
Ch, didn’t you approvingly say that the Supreme Court decision has put the abortion question up to the decisions of the individual states?
You DID say that.
So why is it that, now that pro-choicers got more than enough signatures in Michigan to put an abortion-rights amendment to the state Constitution on the November ballot -- why are Republicans on the Michigan Board of State Canvassers not going to allow it?
What is their excuse? What is the reason are they giving for refusing to put that democratically mandated amendment before the Michigan voters?
Will you tell us that?
The signatures were more than enough, so what excuse are they giving for disobeying that mandate?
Please, in simple language, clarify that for us.
__________
I'm put this question on both blogs, but please answer it here.
Ch said
Just provide ONE President ever who has been charged by the FBI over handling of classified documents.
I SAY
No, Ch, YOU just provide ONE President who has ever grossly mishandled classified documents and then lied about having handing them all over when he did not, as numerous of his advisers warned him not to do.
Hey, Ch, there was a time when a vast majority of Americans were willing to allow slavery in this country, or we would not have had it.
Well isn't that special.
Another liberal argument demanding that if a majority of the country believes there was election fraud... and 80% believe Trump would have won if not for FBI/Social Media collusion to suppress negative information against Biden (and specifically lie about a laptop being Russian disinformation)...
that it must have something to do with slavery?
Why the stupid idiotic illogical dumb rhetorical arguments?
Why are you incapable of arguing logically?
Logically the election was a fraud. The Wisconsin Supreme Court acknowledged what other courts refused to review... that the changes to election laws based on executive actions and election guidance was unconstitutional and illegal.
We know that ballot harvesting went on and many people just turned a blind eye to it.
We know that the FBI lied and directed social media to censor information on Hunter Biden's laptop.
You can refuse to believe as much all you want.
Be a "denier" of the truth?
And dishonestly and stupidly just compare it to slavery as if the concept is at all relevant.
No, Ch, YOU just provide ONE President who has ever grossly mishandled classified documents and then lied about having handing them all over when he did not, as numerous of his advisers warned him not to do.
Of course you do.
You never answer any questions.
You weakly deflect and answer a question with a question.
As you always do....
I say there is no evidence that other Presidents did not documents that had classified markings or were classified at one time. We know Clinton had such documents that were believed to be highly sensitive and that the courts ruled with him (not against him).
I won't make that "assumption".
The only thing we can prove!
No other President has ever been charged for mishandling classified documents... largely because courts have ruled that their classification status is absolute and (confirmed by an Obama EO) that they are not bound by any 'procedures" or "administrative processes".
That can be proved through case law Reverend?
Can you provide the same?
I suspect not.
So unless you can answer the question... don't bother to respond.
Myballsinthewoodsagain said...
If someone continually posts that maga Republicans are dangerous to the country, why won't he tell us why? He keeps saying it but never supports his assertion. Just tell us why? Be factual. Maybe you'll convince someone.
This is a grown man in his mid 70s that shares maybe 200 sqft of space with another grown man.
Don’t hold your breath balls
Except for people like you, we had the most secure election in history because we the Russians were unable to distort the outcome. Trump fired the guy who ran the security system because he said that the election was almost perfect.
You believe that movie that said "We know that ballot harvesting went on and many people just turned a blind eye to it."
You really are a fascist person.
You used to be normal but you will never recover.
Why the stupid idiotic illogical dumb rhetorical arguments?
That’s all he has, he’s not a deep thinker, there ain’t a whole lot up top.
Except for people like you, we had the most secure election in history
You mean except for the 250 plus million Americans who believe there were serious issues?
Just wow. Democrats are trying oh so hard to make this election about Trump. It is not. He's not president. He's not in control of the house. He's not in control of the senate. He didn't change immigration and energy policy his first day in office. He didn't turn Afghanistan into a disaster. He didn't create record inflation. All that is Democrats. This id not and will not be about Trump.
You mean except for the 250 plus million Americans who believe there were
COMPLETE FABRICATION!!!!!!!! Very sad how corrupted your mind has become supporting the lies of the GOP!!!
re 3:38
"This is not and will not be about Trump."
Rev:
I guess that's why so many Republicans are so upset: Trump is doing everything he can to make it about Trump.
His rally speech was overwhelmingly about himself.
Re 3:38
MyBallsInTheWoodshed said:
"This is not and will not be about Trump."
Better tell that to the Donald, ballsy:
read this:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3628906-former-gop-rep-trump-gave-democrats-major-gift-with-speech-in-pennsylvania/
Scott, you actually agree with this one. Indy is 1000% correct now
Biden ended up looking like Hitler, saying things he now says he doesn't believe, and running as far away from that speech as he can, even after all those months of preparation.
To take a perhaps better analogy, given that this is Joe Biden, he's kind of like the emperor with no clothes, susceptible to court flatterers and willing to go naked for them, which is something he always does anyway. It all works so well until it doesn't and a little kid calls him out.
Well, now Biden has to live with himself, revealed for all to see as a phony, while the "Mussolini" meme will become the defining historical image of his miserable presidency.
But it also reveals a lot about Biden's motivation. Despite his obvious unfitness for the job, given his dementia, and despite his obvious illegitimacy, given his electoral fraud, he wants to hear flattery. The gushing he wants to hear from his courtiers is not that he is Ordinary Scranton Joe, as his earlier spinners have put it, but that he is grand, that he is greater than his own history, that he is, somehow, a great man.
It's a vainglory unlike any other.
There's never been a greater disconnect than that vision Joe has of himself, and the miserable reality that defines him. His bad judgment about this is what's leading him to the crazed dictator images that he's presenting to the world now. He tops Jimmy Carter now in the reality that he's a small, bitter, pathetic, little man. He's a clown now, a mouse whose ambitions were only to become a rat.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/09/so_was_it_presidential_historian_jon_meacham_who_wrote_bidens_mussolini_meltdown_speech.html
I guess that's why so many Republicans are so upset: Trump is doing everything he can to make it about Trump.
His rally speech was overwhelmingly about himself.
Pedo the only people I see obsessing, about Bad Orange Man are geriatrics like you the other 2 very aged people here.
James right on cue. Passing someone else's commentary off as his argument.
It’s all about Trump
The R is within striking distance for the governorship of New York.
Keep thinking that “reverend”
Remain calm, all is well!
And no, I’m not predicting an R win, just pointing out how out of touch you are.
"Passing someone else's commentary off as his argument."
What a stupid comment.
No, backing up what I myself was already saying with a cogent link.
https://coldheartedtruthlegacy.blogspot.com/2022/09/open-labor-day-holiday.html
Open and no IED censorship
James can't articulate his own argument so he relies on pasting commentaries of others to make it for him. We all know it. We've all seen it for years now. Yet, he's ignorant enough to call stupid a comment calling him out for it. He's not fooling or impressing anyone.
Post a Comment