What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.**** (1 Viewer)

The Commish

Footballguy
All he has to say is that he declassified them all while he was President. The authority to do so is fully vested in the President, per the Constitution. There’s nothing in there about the process involved. Do you guys really think the National Archives is going to win a pissing contest versus the President?
Honestly, classification is a red herring. It's clear the documents belong to the office of the president, not Trump.

Classification makes a nice story, especially given the parallels to Hillary and it's pretty amusing seeing folks twist themselves up in a knot arguing about obscure loopholes...but it doesn't really matter all that much.

Yea the whole classified angle seems irrelevant. He stole documents from the US government that didn't belong to him and the FBI went and got them back.
Presidential Records Act of 1978....unless people are claiming that law is unconstitutional.
 

Sunshine6854

Footballguy
All he has to say is that he declassified them all while he was President. The authority to do so is fully vested in the President, per the Constitution. There’s nothing in there about the process involved. Do you guys really think the National Archives is going to win a pissing contest versus the President?

This is absolutely not true. Declassification is not self-executing. You think we handle national security the same way Michael Scott thinks we handle bankruptcy?

And again, he's not the president. Having served as president in the past does not confer any special treatment under the law except for secret service protection and a pension. We had a whole war with Great Britain about it and everything. If you would like to live in a country that confers privileged status under the law to its leadership, there are still a few countries that are still governed by monarchies. Monaco seems like the best option to me, but Saudi Arabia seems to have a special place in its heart for American conservatives these days.
You see this parroted on alt right message boards. Like Trump can just declassify something and no one else has to know. These folks jump in and defend defend defend, damn the logic.
 

moleculo

Footballguy
in lieu of recent discussions, it's probably important to brush up on the Presidential Records Act:

Specifically, the Presidential Records Act:

  • Defines and states public ownership of the records.
  • Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent presidential records with the President.
  • Allows the incumbent president to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once he or she has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal in writing. [5]
  • Establishes a process for restriction and public access to these records. Specifically, the PRA allows for public access to presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years. The PRA also establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent administrations to obtain special access to records that remain closed to the public, following a 30‑day notice period to the former and current Presidents.
  • Requires that Vice-Presidential records are to be treated in the same way as presidential records.
  • Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office. [5]
  • Establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain “special access” to records from NARA that remain closed to the public, following a privilege review period by the former and incumbent Presidents; the procedures governing such special access requests continue to be governed by the relevant provisions of E.O. 13489
  • Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts: any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account. (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.)
  • Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.
  • Prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records from being given access to any original records.
in short, all notes, documents, etc that Trump procured while in office are the property of the government, not the individual.

I highlighted what I think may be a key portion above in red - we all know Trump has been stone-walling the J6 investigation and based on the above, that stone-walling appears to be illegal. In short, Trump was illegally possessing material crucial to the J6 investigation, which we all know is time sensitive. that's why this was a raid and not a drawn-out legal proceeding (as is Trump's custom).

ETA: as I recall, the Trump org has not turned over call or visitor logs on January 6. link
 

roadkill1292

Footballguy
in lieu of recent discussions, it's probably important to brush up on the Presidential Records Act:

Specifically, the Presidential Records Act:

  • Defines and states public ownership of the records.
  • Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent presidential records with the President.
  • Allows the incumbent president to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once he or she has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal in writing. [5]
  • Establishes a process for restriction and public access to these records. Specifically, the PRA allows for public access to presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years. The PRA also establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent administrations to obtain special access to records that remain closed to the public, following a 30‑day notice period to the former and current Presidents.
  • Requires that Vice-Presidential records are to be treated in the same way as presidential records.
  • Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office. [5]
  • Establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain “special access” to records from NARA that remain closed to the public, following a privilege review period by the former and incumbent Presidents; the procedures governing such special access requests continue to be governed by the relevant provisions of E.O. 13489
  • Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts: any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account. (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.)
  • Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.
  • Prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records from being given access to any original records.
in short, all notes, documents, etc that Trump procured while in office are the property of the government, not the individual.

I highlighted what I think may be a key portion above in red - we all know Trump has been stone-walling the J6 investigation and based on the above, that stone-walling appears to be illegal. In short, Trump was illegally possessing material crucial to the J6 investigation, which we all know is time sensitive. that's why this was a raid and not a drawn-out legal proceeding (as is Trump's custom).

ETA: as I recall, the Trump org has not turned over call or visitor logs on January 6. link
Donald has always violated the norms of presidential visitor and call logs. Criminals can't do their best work out in the light of public scrutiny.
 

ekbeats

Footballguy
All he has to say is that he declassified them all while he was President. The authority to do so is fully vested in the President, per the Constitution. There’s nothing in there about the process involved. Do you guys really think the National Archives is going to win a pissing contest versus the President?

This is absolutely not true. Declassification is not self-executing. You think we handle national security the same way Michael Scott thinks we handle bankruptcy?

And again, he's not the president. Having served as president in the past does not confer any special treatment under the law except for secret service protection and a pension. We had a whole war with Great Britain about it and everything. If you would like to live in a country that confers privileged status under the law to its leadership, there are still a few countries that are still governed by monarchies. Monaco seems like the best option to me, but Saudi Arabia seems to have a special place in its heart for American conservatives these days.
You see this parroted on alt right message boards. Like Trump can just declassify something and no one else has to know. These folks jump in and defend defend defend, damn the logic.
Do you think the Presidential Records Act supersedes the powers conveyed to him in the Constitution? What case law has there been on this issue?
 

sho nuff

Footballguy
All he has to say is that he declassified them all while he was President. The authority to do so is fully vested in the President, per the Constitution. There’s nothing in there about the process involved. Do you guys really think the National Archives is going to win a pissing contest versus the President?

This is absolutely not true. Declassification is not self-executing. You think we handle national security the same way Michael Scott thinks we handle bankruptcy?

And again, he's not the president. Having served as president in the past does not confer any special treatment under the law except for secret service protection and a pension. We had a whole war with Great Britain about it and everything. If you would like to live in a country that confers privileged status under the law to its leadership, there are still a few countries that are still governed by monarchies. Monaco seems like the best option to me, but Saudi Arabia seems to have a special place in its heart for American conservatives these days.
You see this parroted on alt right message boards. Like Trump can just declassify something and no one else has to know. These folks jump in and defend defend defend, damn the logic.
Do you think the Presidential Records Act supersedes the powers conveyed to him in the Constitution? What case law has there been on this issue?
What powers? When did he declassify? Do you believe he can wherever he wants after he leaves office?
 
All he has to say is that he declassified them all while he was President. The authority to do so is fully vested in the President, per the Constitution. There’s nothing in there about the process involved. Do you guys really think the National Archives is going to win a pissing contest versus the President?

This is absolutely not true. Declassification is not self-executing. You think we handle national security the same way Michael Scott thinks we handle bankruptcy?

And again, he's not the president. Having served as president in the past does not confer any special treatment under the law except for secret service protection and a pension. We had a whole war with Great Britain about it and everything. If you would like to live in a country that confers privileged status under the law to its leadership, there are still a few countries that are still governed by monarchies. Monaco seems like the best option to me, but Saudi Arabia seems to have a special place in its heart for American conservatives these days.
You see this parroted on alt right message boards. Like Trump can just declassify something and no one else has to know. These folks jump in and defend defend defend, damn the logic.
Do you think the Presidential Records Act supersedes the powers conveyed to him in the Constitution? What case law has there been on this issue?

Can you unpack this for me a little bit? What constitutional provision do you think authorizes the president to designate classified material in his own mind?
 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
Do you think the Presidential Records Act supersedes the powers conveyed to him in the Constitution? What case law has there been on this issue?
If Trump did declassify the documents (and I'm not sure that even matters, the docs belong to NARA) why then haven't his lawyers made that claim in the meetings? Why is Trump not on conservative media outlets making that claim? I only see that hypothetical coming from his supporters.

Has Trump himself made that claim?
 

The Commish

Footballguy
Do you think the Presidential Records Act supersedes the powers conveyed to him in the Constitution? What case law has there been on this issue?
If the PRA goes against the Constitution, then the PRA is unconstitutional. If not, it's the law of the land and within the parameters of the Constitution. I am unaware of any case law saying the PRA is unconstitutional and it's been on the books for 40+ years. Should also be noted that I don't think the PRA deals with the "how" of classification of documents etc which is what you were talking about before. Classification is a rabbit hole.
 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
Do you think the Presidential Records Act supersedes the powers conveyed to him in the Constitution? What case law has there been on this issue?
If Trump did declassify the documents (and I'm not sure that even matters, the docs belong to NARA) why then haven't his lawyers made that claim in the meetings? Why is Trump not on conservative media outlets making that claim? I only see that hypothetical coming from his supporters.

Has Trump himself made that claim?

Here's a Fox News article discussing the warrant and Trump's reaction. Nowhere does anyone, including Trump, make a claim that the docs were declassified. I only hear a bunch of "what ifs" from you.

GOP Rep. Banks says Trump 'fired up' after FBI raid, 'made up his mind' on 2024: 'Going to like his decision'

 

moleculo

Footballguy
All he has to say is that he declassified them all while he was President. The authority to do so is fully vested in the President, per the Constitution. There’s nothing in there about the process involved. Do you guys really think the National Archives is going to win a pissing contest versus the President?

This is absolutely not true. Declassification is not self-executing. You think we handle national security the same way Michael Scott thinks we handle bankruptcy?

And again, he's not the president. Having served as president in the past does not confer any special treatment under the law except for secret service protection and a pension. We had a whole war with Great Britain about it and everything. If you would like to live in a country that confers privileged status under the law to its leadership, there are still a few countries that are still governed by monarchies. Monaco seems like the best option to me, but Saudi Arabia seems to have a special place in its heart for American conservatives these days.
You see this parroted on alt right message boards. Like Trump can just declassify something and no one else has to know. These folks jump in and defend defend defend, damn the logic.
Do you think the Presidential Records Act supersedes the powers conveyed to him in the Constitution? What case law has there been on this issue?
for something as important as national security, there has got to be a process declassify things. Trump has the authority to do so, but shouldn't there be a communication, or a log, or a record or something? I mean, can he just say "I declare declassified!"? (reference)
 

moleculo

Footballguy
Do you think the Presidential Records Act supersedes the powers conveyed to him in the Constitution? What case law has there been on this issue?
If the PRA goes against the Constitution, then the PRA is unconstitutional. If not, it's the law of the land and within the parameters of the Constitution. I am unaware of any case law saying the PRA is unconstitutional and it's been on the books for 40+ years. Should also be noted that I don't think the PRA deals with the "how" of classification of documents etc which is what you were talking about before. Classification is a rabbit hole.
Not a lawyer, but even if it's unconstitutional, it's the law of the land until constitutionality is challenged in court. In order to challenge the law, you have to have standing. The only people with standing to challenge the law have been ex-presidents and their staff - no one has challenged that since the law was written.

I doubt it as the constitution specifically assigned the legislature checks and balances over the executive. Arguing against is a claim of executive supremacy. Coincidentally, that's a position William Barr holds, and why he was named AG.
 

ekbeats

Footballguy
All he has to say is that he declassified them all while he was President. The authority to do so is fully vested in the President, per the Constitution. There’s nothing in there about the process involved. Do you guys really think the National Archives is going to win a pissing contest versus the President?

This is absolutely not true. Declassification is not self-executing. You think we handle national security the same way Michael Scott thinks we handle bankruptcy?

And again, he's not the president. Having served as president in the past does not confer any special treatment under the law except for secret service protection and a pension. We had a whole war with Great Britain about it and everything. If you would like to live in a country that confers privileged status under the law to its leadership, there are still a few countries that are still governed by monarchies. Monaco seems like the best option to me, but Saudi Arabia seems to have a special place in its heart for American conservatives these days.
You see this parroted on alt right message boards. Like Trump can just declassify something and no one else has to know. These folks jump in and defend defend defend, damn the logic.
Do you think the Presidential Records Act supersedes the powers conveyed to him in the Constitution? What case law has there been on this issue?
for something as important as national security, there has got to be a process declassify things. Trump has the authority to do so, but shouldn't there be a communication, or a log, or a record or something? I mean, can he just say "I declare declassified!"? (reference)
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying what Trump did was ok. Not at all. I am just questioning whether it rises to the level of something that:
1. Warrants a raid by 30-37 FBI agents
2. Can be prosecuted successfully

Seems like they used a cruise missile to kill a fly. Is it worth all the damage it’s doing to an already fractured country? Is it worth the political risk of getting Trump elected? Prosecutorial discretion is an important and delicate issue, and a lot of people in the country think it has been politicized.
 

2Squirrels1Nut

Footballguy
There is a not insignificant number of people who believe he is still the President and Biden is just a cover story for something...

If this was a moon thread and someone kept arguing that the cream cheese is delicious and that the moon was delicious, we'd probably have to point out, repeatedly, that the moon isn't compromised of cream cheese.
They would argue that their opinion that the moon is delicious is every bit as valid and anyone disagreeing with them is more cancel culture, censorship and against their 1A rights.

Sadly I'm getting too good at this. I never thought I would have liked it better when both parties bent over backwards for lobbyists and their corporate overlords.
 

The Commish

Footballguy
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying what Trump did was ok. Not at all. I am just questioning whether it rises to the level of something that:
1. Warrants a raid by 30-37 FBI agents
2. Can be prosecuted successfully

Seems like they used a cruise missile to kill a fly. Is it worth all the damage it’s doing to an already fractured country? Is it worth the political risk of getting Trump elected? Prosecutorial discretion is an important and delicate issue, and a lot of people in the country think it has been politicized.
I still have no idea how many people were there. Not seen anything reliable on it anywhere, but let's say it was 50 for the sake of argument. With that many people there, it STILL took 10 hours to go through everything. They'd be there weeks if it was a mere 4-5 people.
 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying what Trump did was ok. Not at all. I am just questioning whether it rises to the level of something that:
1. Warrants a raid by 30-37 FBI agents
2. Can be prosecuted successfully

Seems like they used a cruise missile to kill a fly. Is it worth all the damage it’s doing to an already fractured country? Is it worth the political risk of getting Trump elected? Prosecutorial discretion is an important and delicate issue, and a lot of people in the country think it has been politicized.
I still have no idea how many people were there. Not seen anything reliable on it anywhere, but let's say it was 50 for the sake of argument. With that many people there, it STILL took 10 hours to go through everything. They'd be there weeks if it was a mere 4-5 people.
Yeah I don't know why the number of agents involved would matter. We have no idea the amount of documents they were looking for or the size of the area needed to be covered. And as pointed out, it still took 10 hours.

Also, since we have no idea what the subject matter is of the missing docs we don't know if this was overkill or not. Pure speculation from people who are suddenly concerned with the way we treat criminal suspects. For the sake of creating a hypothetical, what if the missing documents contained items of national security? How many agents should they sent then? Yes, prosecutorial discretion is an important issue, so I'll give the pros the benefit of the doubt until we have enough info that suggests otherwise.

We're all just speculating.
 

ekbeats

Footballguy
From today’s Wall St. Journal:

The FBI’s Dangerous Search at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago​

Merrick Garland is taking the U.S. down a perilous path.​

By The Editorial Board

Updated Aug. 10, 2022 9:45 am ET

Monday’s unannounced Federal Bureau of Investigation search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home isn’t a moment for anyone to cheer. The Justice Department is unleashing political furies it can’t control and may not understand, and the risks for the department and the country are as great as they are for Mr. Trump.

As everyone knows by now, an FBI law-enforcement action of this kind against a former American President is unprecedented. Monday’s search needed a judicial warrant in service of probable cause in a criminal probe. The Justice Department has provided few details beyond what has been leaked to reporters, so it is hard to judge what the FBI was looking for.

The media leaks say the search is related to potential mishandling of classified documents or violations of the Presidential Records Act. If that is true, then the raid looks like prosecutorial overkill and a bad mistake. Document disputes are typically settled in negotiation, and that is how Mr. Trump’s disagreement with the National Archives had been proceeding.

Mr. Trump has already returned 15 boxes of documents, but the National Archives wants to know if the former President retained classified material he shouldn’t have. This is what appears to have triggered the FBI search, but it’s far from clear why this couldn’t be settled cooperatively, or at most with a subpoena.

Didn’t someone at Justice point out that a search in this case would draw comparisons to Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information before her 2016 presidential campaign? She was never prosecuted, as Mr. Trump was quick to point out. Unless Mr. Trump’s offense involves a serious risk to national security, half of America may see the Trump search as an example of unequal justice.

***​

This may not be the full FBI story. Multiple media reports suggest that Justice has opened a grand jury probe into the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and Mr. Trump may be a target of that investigation. The House committee investigating Jan. 6 has been cheering for a prosecution, and the political and media pressure is intense on Attorney General Merrick Garland to indict Mr. Trump. The FBI search may be a fishing expedition to find evidence related to Jan. 6.

On the public evidence so far, a Jan. 6 indictment would be a legal stretch. Political responsibility isn’t the same as criminal liability. In our view, the evidence would have to show that Mr. Trump was criminally complicit in that day’s violence at the Capitol.

Given its inherently political nature, the burden of proof is especially high for indicting a former President, all the more so for an Administration of the opposition party. The evidence had better be overwhelming—not merely enough to convince a 12-person jury in the District of Columbia, but enough to convince a majority of the American public.

Then there is the fraught history between Mr. Trump and the FBI and Justice. The Russia collusion probe was a fiasco of FBI abuse of process and public deception. Current FBI director Christopher Wraywas Mr. Trump’s choice to succeed the disastrous James Comey, but the bureau still has a serious credibility problem.

That the Mar-a-Lago raid occurred only about 90 days from a national election also increases the political suspicion. Democrats want to keep Mr. Trump front and center in the midterm campaign, which is why the Jan. 6 committee is continuing into the autumn.

Anyone who thinks an indictment and trial of Mr. Trump would go smoothly is in for a rude surprise. Millions of his supporters will see this as vindication of his charges against the “deep state,” and who knows how they will respond. Has Mr. Garland considered all of this?

***​

Worse in the long term is the precedent being set and the payback it is likely to inspire. Once the Rubicon of prosecuting a former President has been crossed—especially if the alleged offense and evidence are less than compelling—every future President will be a target. William Barr, Mr. Trump’s second AG, wisely resisted pressure to indict political actors without a very strong case. The next Republican AG will not be as scrupulous.

Democrats may also be wrong in their calculation about how a prosecution would affect Mr. Trump’s future. The FBI search alone makes it more likely that Mr. Trump will run again for President, if only to vindicate himself. He will run as a martyr, and even Republicans who want to turn the page on the former President may be repelled by what they see as a political prosecution.

All of this risks compounding the baleful pattern of the last six years. Mr. Trump is accused of violating political norms—sometimes fairly, sometimes not—and the left violates norms in response. Polarization increases, and public faith in institutions and the peaceful settlement of political difference erodes further.

The FBI search on Mr. Trump suggests that Mr. Garland may be committed to pursuing and indicting Mr. Trump. If so, he is taking the country on a perilous road. There is much ruin in a nation, but no one should want to test the limits of that ruin in America.
 
All he has to say is that he declassified them all while he was President. The authority to do so is fully vested in the President, per the Constitution. There’s nothing in there about the process involved. Do you guys really think the National Archives is going to win a pissing contest versus the President?

This is absolutely not true. Declassification is not self-executing. You think we handle national security the same way Michael Scott thinks we handle bankruptcy?

And again, he's not the president. Having served as president in the past does not confer any special treatment under the law except for secret service protection and a pension. We had a whole war with Great Britain about it and everything. If you would like to live in a country that confers privileged status under the law to its leadership, there are still a few countries that are still governed by monarchies. Monaco seems like the best option to me, but Saudi Arabia seems to have a special place in its heart for American conservatives these days.
You see this parroted on alt right message boards. Like Trump can just declassify something and no one else has to know. These folks jump in and defend defend defend, damn the logic.
Do you think the Presidential Records Act supersedes the powers conveyed to him in the Constitution? What case law has there been on this issue?
for something as important as national security, there has got to be a process declassify things. Trump has the authority to do so, but shouldn't there be a communication, or a log, or a record or something? I mean, can he just say "I declare declassified!"? (reference)
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying what Trump did was ok. Not at all. I am just questioning whether it rises to the level of something that:
1. Warrants a raid by 30-37 FBI agents
2. Can be prosecuted successfully

Seems like they used a cruise missile to kill a fly. Is it worth all the damage it’s doing to an already fractured country? Is it worth the political risk of getting Trump elected? Prosecutorial discretion is an important and delicate issue, and a lot of people in the country think it has been politicized.

I don't profess to be an expert in evidence gathering. If you are, great. If you're not, I'm gonna go ahead and defer to the FBI's judgment on this one. We as a society defer to law enforcement without question when they shoot people, this seems like a weird time to start operating from an assumption of impropriety.

I could not possibly care less about "political risk" or anything like that. The man broke the law, repeatedly, in ways that damage our nation's interests. I think sending a message that nobody is above the law is far more important than some political risk that I'm not sure exists (95% of the noise about fracturing the country comes from people who have already fractured it beyond short-term repair by standing with Trump). And using prosecutorial discretion to pass on matters that "a lot of people in the country think have been politicized" simply encourages more politicization, idol worship and lawlessness.
 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying what Trump did was ok. Not at all. I am just questioning whether it rises to the level of something that:
1. Warrants a raid by 30-37 FBI agents
2. Can be prosecuted successfully

Seems like they used a cruise missile to kill a fly. Is it worth all the damage it’s doing to an already fractured country? Is it worth the political risk of getting Trump elected? Prosecutorial discretion is an important and delicate issue, and a lot of people in the country think it has been politicized.
According to this podcast -- which I highly recommend to anyone interested in this matter -- thirty agents is not very many for executing a search warrant.


Also, the standard for getting a search warrant, I believe, is that a crime was probably committed -- not that someone can be prosecuted successfully. The latter has a higher bar, and in any case is hard to evaluate before executing a warrant and assessing the evidence recovered.
 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
The FBI search on Mr. Trump suggests that Mr. Garland may be committed to pursuing and indicting Mr. Trump. If so, he is taking the country on a perilous road. There is much ruin in a nation, but no one should want to test the limits of that ruin in America.
Hasn't Donald Trump already tested the limits of what may ruin America? No other president has tested the limits of our norms like Trump. Did Obama take classified material and refuse to give it back? Bush? Reagan? Anyone? Or has been just Trump?

Has any other president devised and then followed through with a scheme to submit fake elector so his VP could violate his Constitutional duties? Or has it been just Trump?

Yes Garland and the DOJ are facing unprecedented actions, but their subject has done unprecedented acts.

As for retaliation - if any Dem breaks the law then by all means investigate and if necessary, prosecute. I don't care who they are. Period.
 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
From today’s Wall St. Journal:

The FBI’s Dangerous Search at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago​

Merrick Garland is taking the U.S. down a perilous path.​

By The Editorial Board

I think it's completely insane for anybody to purport to judge the merits of the search warrant without even seeing the search warrant (much less the supporting affidavit).
 

moleculo

Footballguy
All he has to say is that he declassified them all while he was President. The authority to do so is fully vested in the President, per the Constitution. There’s nothing in there about the process involved. Do you guys really think the National Archives is going to win a pissing contest versus the President?

This is absolutely not true. Declassification is not self-executing. You think we handle national security the same way Michael Scott thinks we handle bankruptcy?

And again, he's not the president. Having served as president in the past does not confer any special treatment under the law except for secret service protection and a pension. We had a whole war with Great Britain about it and everything. If you would like to live in a country that confers privileged status under the law to its leadership, there are still a few countries that are still governed by monarchies. Monaco seems like the best option to me, but Saudi Arabia seems to have a special place in its heart for American conservatives these days.
You see this parroted on alt right message boards. Like Trump can just declassify something and no one else has to know. These folks jump in and defend defend defend, damn the logic.
Do you think the Presidential Records Act supersedes the powers conveyed to him in the Constitution? What case law has there been on this issue?
for something as important as national security, there has got to be a process declassify things. Trump has the authority to do so, but shouldn't there be a communication, or a log, or a record or something? I mean, can he just say "I declare declassified!"? (reference)
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying what Trump did was ok. Not at all. I am just questioning whether it rises to the level of something that:
1. Warrants a raid by 30-37 FBI agents
2. Can be prosecuted successfully

Seems like they used a cruise missile to kill a fly. Is it worth all the damage it’s doing to an already fractured country? Is it worth the political risk of getting Trump elected? Prosecutorial discretion is an important and delicate issue, and a lot of people in the country think it has been politicized.
They tried a fly swatter. They had been in negotiations since January. When stonewalled, should they just give up?

Is Trump so important that rules no longer apply?
 

roadkill1292

Footballguy
The FBI search on Mr. Trump suggests that Mr. Garland may be committed to pursuing and indicting Mr. Trump. If so, he is taking the country on a perilous road. There is much ruin in a nation, but no one should want to test the limits of that ruin in America.
Hasn't Donald Trump already tested the limits of what may ruin America? No other president has tested the limits of our norms like Trump. Did Obama take classified material and refuse to give it back? Bush? Reagan? Anyone? Or has been just Trump?

Has any other president devised and then followed through with a scheme to submit fake elector so his VP could violate his Constitutional duties? Or has it been just Trump?

Yes Garland and the DOJ are facing unprecedented actions, but their subject has done unprecedented acts.

As for retaliation - if any Dem breaks the law then by all means investigate and if necessary, prosecute. I don't care who they are. Period.
The threats of retaliation are empty ones meant to maintain the pretense that the Dems and their partners in the Deep State are unjustly persecuting Trump for his politics.

This fools the ignorant few but in substance they got nuttin'.
 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
The FBI search on Mr. Trump suggests that Mr. Garland may be committed to pursuing and indicting Mr. Trump. If so, he is taking the country on a perilous road. There is much ruin in a nation, but no one should want to test the limits of that ruin in America.
Hasn't Donald Trump already tested the limits of what may ruin America? No other president has tested the limits of our norms like Trump. Did Obama take classified material and refuse to give it back? Bush? Reagan? Anyone? Or has been just Trump?

Has any other president devised and then followed through with a scheme to submit fake elector so his VP could violate his Constitutional duties? Or has it been just Trump?

Yes Garland and the DOJ are facing unprecedented actions, but their subject has done unprecedented acts.

As for retaliation - if any Dem breaks the law then by all means investigate and if necessary, prosecute. I don't care who they are. Period.
The threats of retaliation are empty ones meant to maintain the pretense that the Dems and their partners in the Deep State are unjustly persecuting Trump for his politics.

This fools the ignorant few but in substance they got nuttin'.
Oh I get the intent behind the threats. However if any Dem is suspected of wrongdoing, investigated, and charged then by all means prosecute to the fullest.

Weird how Trump supporters, and those who are just concerned he's not being treated fairly, can't say the same thing.
 

sho nuff

Footballguy
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying what Trump did was ok. Not at all. I am just questioning whether it rises to the level of something that:
1. Warrants a raid by 30-37 FBI agents
2. Can be prosecuted successfully

Seems like they used a cruise missile to kill a fly. Is it worth all the damage it’s doing to an already fractured country? Is it worth the political risk of getting Trump elected? Prosecutorial discretion is an important and delicate issue, and a lot of people in the country think it has been politicized.
I still have no idea how many people were there. Not seen anything reliable on it anywhere, but let's say it was 50 for the sake of argument. With that many people there, it STILL took 10 hours to go through everything. They'd be there weeks if it was a mere 4-5 people.
We took 11 investigators and one armed police officer into one small building when we had an investigation I worked on looking for documents. 2 of those were our IT crew pulling hard drives...the rest of us boxing documents and making copies. There were 4 others in another location. And it was a pretty small office we were looking into...and yes that took all of that day...and then sorting through it all took quite a long time.

None of us know the overall scope of the warrant and what they were looking for...so really hard to comment on how many were needed.
 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
I see Jenna Ellis is next up to testify in the GA grand jury investigation.

Trump legal adviser Jenna Ellis ordered to testify in Georgia election probe

The Fulton County district attorney described Ellis as “an attorney for the Trump Campaign’s legal efforts seeking to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere.”
ATLANTA — A judge in Colorado on Tuesday ordered a legal adviser for former President Donald Trump’s campaign to travel to Georgia to testify before a special grand jury that’s looking into whether Trump and others illegally tried to influence the 2020 election in Georgia.

Judge Gregory Lammons in Fort Collins, Colorado, made the decision after holding a hearing on a request from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to compel testimony from attorney Jenna Ellis. Prosecutors are interested in Ellis’s role in helping to coordinate and plan legislative hearings in Georgia and others states where false allegations of election fraud were pushed, according to testimony in court.

Fulton County prosecutors have purchased plane tickets and made a hotel reservation in preparation for Ellis to testify on Aug. 25.
 

Sabertooth

Footballguy
Don’t need to get him. He squandered away the Senate, House, and POTUS. I personally don’t care if he sits in jail or not. Hes truly been a gift to liberals. Much like the Jelly of the month club he just keep on giving.
 

Sabertooth

Footballguy
Asked about Trump’s claims that he actually won the 2020 election, Cobb said, “I believe former President Trump to be a deeply wounded narcissist, and he is often incapable of acting other than in his perceived self-interest or for revenge.”

’“I think those are the two compelling instincts that guide his actions,” Cobb said.

“He doesn’t believe he lost. I believe that,” he said.
 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
Asked about Trump’s claims that he actually won the 2020 election, Cobb said, “I believe former President Trump to be a deeply wounded narcissist, and he is often incapable of acting other than in his perceived self-interest or for revenge.”

’“I think those are the two compelling instincts that guide his actions,” Cobb said.

“He doesn’t believe he lost. I believe that,” he said.
I think Trump believes he can grift more money from his followers. Just keep them thinking THEY'RE the victims when really they're the mark.
 

McBokonon

YOI!!!
Asked about Trump’s claims that he actually won the 2020 election, Cobb said, “I believe former President Trump to be a deeply wounded narcissist, and he is often incapable of acting other than in his perceived self-interest or for revenge.”

’“I think those are the two compelling instincts that guide his actions,” Cobb said.

“He doesn’t believe he lost. I believe that,” he said.
EVERYTHING Trump does, most of which is observable without a media filter or other commentary, supports this basic idea and how people with functioning brains can’t see that is completely dumbfounding.
 

Sabertooth

Footballguy
Oh absolutely, from the way he pushed aside world leaders to preen to his nasty disposition with anyone he no longer feels can benefit him. It's spot on.
 

Sabertooth

Footballguy
Asked about Trump’s claims that he actually won the 2020 election, Cobb said, “I believe former President Trump to be a deeply wounded narcissist, and he is often incapable of acting other than in his perceived self-interest or for revenge.”

’“I think those are the two compelling instincts that guide his actions,” Cobb said.

“He doesn’t believe he lost. I believe that,” he said.
I think Trump believes he can grift more money from his followers. Just keep them thinking THEY'RE the victims when really they're the mark.
Why not both?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top