1. I banned a troll today. The relatively new commenter kept pretending not to understand my point introducing the Open Forum, which was that for the Biden Administration’s now indisputably partisan and politicized Justice Department to indict its Democratic President’s chief rival for essentially the same conduct that Biden engaged in was “throwing jet fuel” on what is already a highly combustible political division in the country, and thus reckless and irresponsible. The now-banned commenter kept pointing to technical distinctions and differences in details between Biden’s misappropriation of classified documents and Trump’s, which misses the ethics point, either deliberately (trolling) or stupidly.
What much of the public sees is a party and a White House using the justice system to try to knock out a feared political opponent (which it has been trying to do for years) and applying a double standard to do it. (The rest of the public doesn’t care if that is all true; its ethics alarms-free position is that Trump deserves whatever happens to him, and is an exception to usual rules of due process, fairness, and the presumption of innocence.) Whether or not the charges against Trump are legitimate—and based on the indictment released today, they look strong—doesn’t matter. Democrats have destroyed any opportunity they may have had once to be seen as capable of dispensing non-partisan justice. The non-Trump Deranged public has already seen two manufactured impeachments and one political prosecution of the ex-President in New York; it has also seen an outrageous persecution of the January 6 Capitol rioters. “Throwing jet fuel” on a dangerously volatile situation is what this is, and pursuing a prosecution of Donald Trump was not worth the risk.
The indictment will lead to almost certain escalation of substantial distrust in the government, Democrats and the Justice Department regarding their pursuit of Donald Trump, particularly after the revelations of the Durham Report.
2. Mike Pence’s fatuous reaction that “no one is above the law”shows (again) what an empty suit he is. Everyone can see that Democrats are routinely above the law. Bill Clinton lied and obstructed the investigation into his tryst with Monica Lewinsky. He committed perjury before a grand jury (Clinton’s spin: “I wasn’t helpful.”) Hillary Clinton deliberately used a secret server to illicitly handle classified communications and lied about it repeatedly. Bill Clinton had a mysterious meeting with Obama’s Attorney General while the handling of Hillary’s machinations was still pending. Who believes that Biden’s Justice Department looked into Joe’s wrongful retention of sensitive documents to the same degree they did they looked for violations by Trump? My guess is that misappropriation of classified documents by exiting POTUSes is common, even routine, which is probably why Trump assumed it was no big deal. (He really does have a flat learning curve. He needs to be beyond reproach, because he is being hunted.)
3. Before the indictment was available, Jonathan Turley wrote a post about several aspects of the case. He wrote,
- “There are legitimate questions about the independence and integrity shown by the Department in past investigations from the Russian collusion allegations to the Hunter Biden scandal. The Justice Department cannot ignore those widespread concerns in these cases.” But they did ignore it. That was my point that the troll refused to acknowledge.
- “While Biden’s account seems implausible on some points, the Justice Department could distinguish the cases as a matter of intentional versus negligent conduct.” Which they obviously did, perhaps legitimately. However, it has long since lost any credibility.
-
“The inclusion of mishandling charges is likely a concern for the Biden legal team. After all, Biden is accused of repeatedly moving classified material to different locations, including his garage. Some documents have reportedly been traced to removal from a secure location while Biden was still a senator over a decade ago.” Turley then writes, “[I]f the charges are crafted to avoid those crimes, there will be a concern over prosecutors seeking to nail President Trump but miss President Biden.”
- Of course!
I shouldn’t have to write this again, but I will: I will be thrilled at almost anything that removes Donald Trump from contention for the Republican nomination. He is human jet fuel on our increasingly explosive national divisions. However, the Democratic Party’s criminalization of politics and its corruption of law enforcement and the Justice Department to achieve that end is just as certain to result in disaster for the nation as Trump’s continued influence.
Ethics Alarms 
I will disagree with your assertion that it doesn’t matter if Trump is guilty or not. It is certainly true that the Justice Department is pretty politicized, but I think it’s more a matter of bias than any deliberate intent. (I realize you won’t disagree). To people on the left like myself, what we feel is a big problem with Republicans is the way they seemingly always find a way to forgive Trump or otherwise be opposed to do anything about his behavior. Going after him is too political, too hypocritical, too bad for the country, you name it. Whether or not he did anything wrong is seemingly beside the point. Yet when it comes to Democrats, the same behavior is considered outrageous… “Lock her up!”
I’m not saying that the Democrats are completely innocent of the above hypocrisy, or that some of their actions are not pretty questionable (The NYC prosecution seems like overreach and probably not something that is right to do with a major political figure). But I think also that no political figure should be considered above the law for the good of the country or some other reason. Whether Trump, Biden, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else, some things should be pursued. The US is so divided at this point I personally feel that such a prosecution can’t really make things much worse, and some crimes (like this total disregard for the handling of classified documents) should be prosecuted, regardless of who is doing it.
(Small correction: I meant you won’t agree, not won’t disagree)
The issue isn’t whether to prosecute such behavior, but that it isn’t about justice. It is clearly a political act. What do you think the likely hood that Clinton’s, Bidens , or any of the many congress critter who make millions off a salary of 100000s will be held to the same standard.
Funny, on the way to bed I was just thinking about how Congress gets away with routine leagl violations in finance, abuse of funds, and insider trading. I should have included that.
(I make that exact typo too often to count.)
1. Let me try again: whether he is guilty or not is irrelevant to the danger and irresponsible nature of prosecuting or trying him at this point. It’s not irrelevant legally, but I never said it was.
2. There is deliberate intent motivated by bias, the bias being, “We are good, they are evil, so the normal restrictions and rules don’t apply.
3. It really is a cheap shot to resort to stupid mob chants like “Lock her up!” as fairly representative of the Right generally.
4. “But I think also that no political figure should be considered above the law for the good of the country or some other reason.” That’s great in theory, but in practice, applying the criminal justice system mid-election, mid campaign, or sufficiently close corrupts democracy and invites abuse. I know my Presidential history well enough to be certain that plenty of other candidates or POTUSes could have been indicted, except that parties and agencies and officials knew where that leads.
“Whether Trump, Biden, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else, some things should be pursued.” Again, in principle. In reality, Gerald Ford was right. The better approach is to nominate and vote for politicians of good character who won’t break laws—like Trump, the Clintons, and Biden.
“The US is so divided at this point I personally feel that such a prosecution can’t really make things much worse”--Oh, believe me, it can get much worse.
“and some crimes (like this total disregard for the handling of classified documents) should be prosecuted, regardless of who is doing it.” I’d argue that if we are going to really try to send high level elected official to jail, it has to be for more serious crimes. Or, we decide that it IS serious, and enforce it vigorously, which we haven’t until now.
Apart from the issue of whether or not Trump should have been indicted over the documents, I just want to say these are most definitely serious crimes. I don’t know if you’ve ever worked in a job where there were highly classified documents, but if an employee brings top secret documents home, refuses to returns them, lies to investigators, stores them on a ballroom stage, and shows off the documents to his friends, if he is caught he most definitely will get fully prosecuted and his career is over. Arguably the #1 priority for foreign intelligence services is to get inside information over sensitive matters, and here Trump was showing off plans for an Iran war to journalists for no good reason. I realize that we are in a highly charged political environment, but whatever your views are whether prosecution of a former president and current candidate is a good idea, the actions here should not be minimized.
I agree.
The Justice Department’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s deliberate misappropriation of sensitive documents, which included sending them to whoever she felt like sending them to however, did not send that message to the public. And she was Secretary of State, not a former President. So this appears to be, in general though not in details the two cases don’t share, a double standard.
The question remains if the person with the power to declassify ANY document – that is the duly elected president- retains materials that he as president believed he has declassified is a crime. If in fact that he is correct in that belief, then the obstruction charge must vanish as it requires a predicate crime.
I have had that discussion with other former federal employees who treat the president as any other employee within the government.
No one seems to care that demands for documents between branches of government, in some cases to elude detection of criminal wrongdoing (knowingly lying to FISA court) is routinely dismissed as a nothing burger.
Finally, an indictment reflects the interpretation of facts by those who measure success of their investigations in terms of indictments; convictions are just icing on the cake.
The reporting of the indictment never mention any potential defenses that could be raised so the public is led to believe that the indictment is itself evidence of guilt. Which is misinformation. It is only an allegation at this point. In my opinion broadcasting the details of the indictment is designed to prejudice the potential jury.
I am old enough to remember when it was a high crime or high misdemeanor to merely ask for an investigation if a potential political opponent, even if there was probable cause.
Why would it not be a high crime or high misdemeanor to actually indict a political opponent?
Your citation of the Durham Report is spot on. It is like Wanetta Gibson accusing anyone else (let alone Brian Banks again) of rape!
For the obvious reason that anyone could crime with impunity by simply making themselves a candidate for office.
Bingo. (Did you just use crime as a verb?)
Yes.
I think I like it!
Denominal verbing (see what I did there) is fun.
So, you admit to being a denominaller, willfully denominalling. The language police are on the way.
I’d better defenestrate before they get me.
Then this rationale applies with equal force to the notion that merely asking for an investigation is some sort of high crime or high misdemeanor.
Could you be more specific please?
Are you saying presidents shouldn’t ask for investigations? shouldn’t ask for just criminal investigations? Does this extend to everyone senate-confirmed? AG? US Attorneys? FBI director? Is it asking if an underling approaches with evidence of something and asks for permission to open an investigation.
What’s your proposal for how you want this to work? At which point is a line crossed?
If there is probable cause that wrongdoing was done by someone, I see no problem with the President asking someone to take a look.
In 2019, the House disagreed.
Adding for anyone who has yet to read the indictment.
Click to access read-trump-indictment-related-to-mishandling-of-classified-documents.pdf
Personally I dislike most everything about Trump; however, it seems to me that the foundational support under each of the counts in the indictment is that the documents were classified. It’s up to the Justice Department to prove their claims, innocent until proven guilty. So if Trump walks into court and simply states that as President of the United States of America he declassified all of the documents (which he can do as President) then they have to prove that he didn’t declassify the documents – thus having to prove a negative.
Here is an interesting opinion in a Alan Dershowitz Newsletter about this specifically.
oh look on page two of the indictment…
valkygrrl wrote, “oh look on page two of the indictment…”
I did and to be sure, Trump’s mouth is his own worst enemy, but knowing Trump the way we all do that came across as Trumps usual self-elevating narcissistic bluster that we constantly hear from him, otherwise why would he have said it? Trump’s long verifiable pattern if self-elevating narcissistic bluster actually works in his favor in this one. Remember reasonable doubt, I think there is all kinds of reasonable doubt in this but if a person is inclined to find anything Trump does as criminal and evil then that would be a driving factor.
What’s more, if the documents were previously declassified it’s irrelevant what bluster Trump spouted while trying to bolster his narcissism.
I’d say that the prosecution has the same burden of proof as in any other classified documents case and they in addition they have Trump’s own admission against interests. Then a jury decides.
This is the way.
This is the way.
Then a jury can decide whether or not FJB willfilly removed classified documents when he was a senator.
If you read the indictment, it says there’s a process to follow for Trump to declassify documents but he never did it.
Kat Doukas wrote, “If you read the indictment, it says there’s a process to follow for Trump to declassify documents but he never did it.”
Kat I did read the entire indictment and I didn’t catch anything in there that supports the claim you just made, so I’m going to give you a chance to back that claim up with some actual facts so show me what I missed with actual quotes and you must provide the page numbers and section/paragraph numbers so I can see what I missed.
It’s my understanding that that declassifying process doesn’t apply to the President of the United States and it hasn’t for a while. I “think” that changed during either the Bush or the Obama administration to streamline things for the President because the President is the only person in the USA government that has the authority to declassify anything the President wants with a statement so the President doesn’t have to wait for the long winded process to complete. My understanding is that the “process” applies to everyone but the President of the United States.
What I thought was interesting reading the indictment for a non lawyer like me is that the legal jargon in the indictment constantly refers specifically to “documents with classification markings” not “classified documents”. Some people might say that that’s a distinction without a difference but the way I read that is they are very specifically focusing on “documents with classification markings” regardless if there is a chance that Trump actually declassified the documents and regardless if Trump had a right to keep them or not. It is entirely possible for a President to declassify a document but the classified markings remain intact until the document are reprinted without those markings. My question is, was there an intentional wording trap built into this whole fiasco?
I don’t know if Trump is guilty of any of this or not and if Trump actually knowingly broke the law regarding classified documents then throw the damn book at him but be reasonable when doing so. But if there was a good faith effort on President Trump’s part to declassify the documents before they were removed from a secure government facility, then this whole thing has the appearance of being a political witch hunt and weaponizing the Department of Justice to destroy a political opponent.
What’s really clear is that the Democrat’s narrative has been built, they are going to stick to their narrative, and I smell something really foul. Why would I say such a thing after reading the indictment? Because…
The political left has shown its pattern of propaganda lies within their narratives so many times since 2016 that it’s beyond me why anyone would blindly accept any narrative that the political left and their lapdog media actively push?
…that’s why.
Read item 18 of the indictment.
Previously Kat Doukas wrote, “If you read the indictment, it says there’s a process to follow for Trump to declassify documents but he never did it.”
I wrote, “I’m going to give you a chance to back that claim up with some actual facts so show me what I missed with actual quotes and you must provide the page numbers and section/paragraph numbers so I can see what I missed.”
Kat Doukas wrote, “Read item 18 of the indictment.”
No Kat, you didn’t properly comprehend #18.
Item 18 is about getting a waver to keep classified documents NOT talking about a process to declassify documents, in fact there is absolutely zero in #18 about “declassify documents” as you claimed. Did you make that up originally and try to pull a fast one?
You’re verifiably wrong on this one Kat.
Here is something that you should at least think about; if President Trump actually declassified the documents he kept then there would be absolutely no reason for him to request a waver to keep unclassified documents.
Executive Order 13526, Part 3 (Declassification & Downgrading) has the details. If you want a checklist or SOP, there is not one. The National Declassification Center may have one, but it is not published (maybe weak Google-Fu on my part). If he did declassify them, there has, as yet been no memorandum produced to the appropriate agencies indicating he did so. I don’t think we would be playing this game if he followed procedures.
“I don’t think we would be playing this game if he followed procedures.”
Ya think????
Ya think????
Smiley face…Was distracted and forgot to add a sarcasm tag. “What/if” deserves a classification.
Jeff Staley wrote, “I don’t think we would be playing this game if he followed procedures.”
Trump follow procedures, how dare you suggest Trump do such a thing! 😉 😉 😉
I’m sure Trump’s opinion on that is, that’s for his lowly subordinates to deal with not him.
In may ways, Trump is his own worst enemy.
Ha. That last sentence is an invitation to several Sherlock Holmes jokes…
Presidents are not bound by their own executive orders.
I do think it’s really interesting that Democrats, progressives and/or the Trump deranged consider everything that comes out of Trump’s mouth to be a lie, I’ve heard it day after day, but then statements like what valkygrrl quoted from the indictment are considered to be the truth.
Has anyone else notice this pattern from Democrats and the Trump deranged since 2016 of what’s deemed as truth and lies regarding Trump, I do? Here’s the unspoken truth; it’s whatever they can use to smear, demonize or claim is illegal regarding Trump. So if they happen to think differently than something Trump says then what Trump said is lie, evil and/or illegal, if what Trump says can be used “as is” to smear Trump then what Trump says is truth, evil, and/or illegal. It really is a political witch hunt of epic proportions. This pattern of Trump derangement is in our faces all the time and I think it’s signature significant.
Everything is a lose lose for Trump and yet that damn fool won’t stop intentionally antagonizing his opposition. Why can’t he just go away; oh yea, he’s a flaming narcissist and everything is about him, everything else be damned.
Yes, I have noticed that pattern. I’ve also noticed that there is a huge portion of the population willing to pretend not to notice the pattern exists.
From MSNBC:
“You have to wonder if the Justice Department is considering whether there is some political solution to this criminal problem,” Rachel Maddow told Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC on the Trump indictment “Whether part of the issue here is not just that Trump has committed crimes, but that Trump has committed crimes and plans on being back in the White House,” she said.
“Do they consider as part of a potential plea offer, something that would proscribe him… proscribe him from running for office again? I don’t know.”
In simpler terms, if Trump agrees to bow out of the 2024 race, the charges will magically disappear.
This is the all-partisan, pro-Democrat, Trump-hating network seeing the indictment this way. And you don’t think the side that (justifiably) doesn’t trust the Justice Department or the Democrats won’t see the indictment the same way?
I’m a Democrat and I find her comments appalling. Clearly there is some partisanship in the Justice Department, but there’s no reason to automatically assume that Jack Smith thinks like Rachel Maddow. If you read the indictment Trump made it really easy for them to build a case against him. Honestly that’s what shocks me the most here… how after all the hoopla with Hillary and her emails, he was still so reckless with documents after he left office, and how he blatantly hid them from the National Archives, showed them off to people and so on. I know you aren’t going to agree, but I do believe that if the Trump administration was presented with a similar opportunity to go after Biden before the 2020 election, they would have jumped on it.
Obviously it would be better if we didn’t have corrupt politicians at the highest level, but that is the situation we are faced with. I don’t think we should just give it all a pass in terms of legal enforcement for the sake of the country. I personally would be delighted if corrupt Democrats and Republicans alike were not running for high office because the Justice Department was doing their job going after serious offenses.
Agree on all counts, Michael, and very well stated, except that I find Maddow’s reaction predictable (but yes, appalling). Jack Smith, my colleagues tell me who know of him and worked with those who know him, is by all accounts a serious, ethical prosecutor—I assume, however, given its larger context and consequences, the decision to seek an indictment was not ultimately his.
The whole point of the special counsel is that the decision is hers (or his), The AG can overrule a choice to indict only for cause which she (or he) has to then explain to congress why she did so.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.7
Please Jack, I’m begging you, check your sources before opining.
I read the same document, and this part is what matters:
“[the independent counsel] must be “an individual who has appropriate experience and who will conduct the investigation and any prosecution in a prompt, responsible and cost-effective manner…As the name implies, the independent counsel works outside of the Department of Justice system. Nevertheless, the IC is required to comply with Justice Department policies “except to the extent that doing so would be inconsistent with the purposes” of the law.”
The counsel is an agent of the Justice Department, and must take into consideration all of the things the Department must consider. If it abuses that discretion, that’s on DOJ as well as the IC.
And let me add: none of the strictures in the IC law prevent the AG or Justice from discussing the case with the IC, and if anyone really thinks Smith didn’t have the OK of DOJ before taking this leap, I have a bridge in Arizona to sell them. Yes, the ultimate decision is formally his. I do not believe that the decision itself could, in practical terms, be made unless he had the support of Garland et al. (My sources include former DOJ lawyers, who are invaluable in explaining how the place and its internal politics work.)
“Honestly that’s what shocks me the most here… how after all the hoopla with Hillary and her emails, he was still so reckless with documents after he left office, and how he blatantly hid them from the National Archives, showed them off to people and so on.”
I’m disgusted but after all this time and so many examples, not shocked. He’s an arrogant, narcissistic fool with more hubris than a Greek tragic hero who follows the rationalization called “Self-Anointed Virtue”—if Trump does it, it must be good by definition. He is also reckless and, in many ways, an idiot.
The huge distinction here between Trump and Pence/Biden/Hillary et al is intent.
The indictment is damning because it shows Trump knew he didn’t declassify the documents, was told he was to give them back, decided to hide them instead from the Feds
(Except that Hillary’s intent was clear and malign, and lower level State officials had been indicted for less.) Not a defense for Trump, but a fact that undermines the fairness and credibility of the prosecution in the eyes of much of the public.
That and the fact that anytime any other politicians get caught doing the exact same thing no one really investigates anything. They all get a quick once over for appearances sake and then a pass on political grounds.
I will agree it is a good thing to indict Trump right after both Clinton’s, Bush, Biden and Obama are indicted for the exact same behavior with similar political force applied. I want the giant FBI raids, the wall to wall media coverage, the whole shebang.
We all know no one really cares whether or not Trump is actually guilty. If the left cared about selling US policy for bribes they would hate Biden and Hillary Clinton. If they cared about classified documents being handled improperly they would hate every President since Reagan with equip fervor.
Only Trump gets this treatment. Only Trump gets this level of vitriol directed towards him. That tells me everything I need to know. It is political.
I’ve been trying to think of a good analogy for this: I had one last night and promptly forgot it. But it’s like someone who has accused multiple employers of sexual harassment in the workplace and been proven to have lied. Then she is sexually harassed, and nobody believes her. That’s not justice in one sense, but in another, it is. She has squandered her right to accuse because she abused it. That’s not a legal principle, but it is a basic human reaction to “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”
In this case it’s rather like a game of Duck Duck Goose. You have a big circle of political figures who all mishandled classified documents and a DOJ calling out out Duck to everyone until they get to Trump. Trump gets called a Goose and is chased around in frantic legal circles while everyone else gets to sit calmly on the play area.
Except this game has been repeated for about 7 years now with various legal issues and in every single round of this stupid game Trump gets tagged a Goose and everyone else is always tagged a Duck. Even kindergartners would notice if only one kid always got tapped as the Goose.
That’s the best metaphor I’ve got without more coffee.
Funny you mention ducks. Check the most recent post….
Wanetta Gibson
Where is ol’ Wanetta these days?
If I were a little dumber, I would advocate that McCarthy begin drafting articles of impeachment of Biden for mishandling classified information.
After all, if such behavior is indictment-worthy, it should be impeachment-worthy.
-Jut
I am wondering why there is no mention of his valet being indicted for moving the boxes in which the alleged sensitive information was contained.
Why are we not indicting everyone who moved boxes for Biden or Pence?
The valet Walt Nauta has been indicted actually. People who moved boxes for Biden or Pence aren’t going to be indicted because they did not intentionally conceal their actions from the authorities. It’s the obstruction issue.
Oh, bullshit. They aren’t going to be indicted because the ruling class doesn’t want them indicted. Trump and his people will be indicted because the ruling class wants Trump and his people destroyed.
Hillary Clinton destroyed the pirate server she was using to disseminate classified information to foreign governments in exchange for bribes. That is obstruction. Yet Hillary isn’t facing charges, is she?
The entire last 7 years has been a fight over whether or not the citizens the government doesn’t like get a say in their government. The ruling class wants to make it very clear that the ruling class has total power over the citizenry, and the citizenry should sit down, shut up and do what they are told, or else.
There is no evidence to support your assertion that Hillary Clinton disseminated classified information to foreign governments in exchange for bribes. In reality, no one was ever able to make a full account of her missing emails, and any such assertions are mere guesswork.
As for the ruling class going after Trump, yes they don’t like him. But no one forced him to make these highly unforced errors in the current documents case. If he had half a brain he would have recognized that if he mishandled documents as blatantly as he did, the Justice Department might go after him. The current mess was 100 percent preventable. This is on him.
It’s easy not to find any evidence when you never actually investigate. It’s also easy not to find evidence when you let criminals destroy all the evidence. Smashing up phones and hard drives with hammers, using BleachBit to wipe the server, all obstruction of justice. Obstruction that was never investigated. If no one is above the law, why was this obstruction never prosecuted?
The issue is that no one knows what was on the hammered devices, or in the deleted emails. They could have been personal things Hillary Clinton wanted to keep private for all anyone knows. If they had subpoenaed her devices and they she destroyed them, then that’s obstruction. Just destroying old devices or deleting old emails might be a bad idea if you’re running for president, but it’s not obstruction.
And the pills that the accused fentanyl dealer flushed down the toilet just as the cops burst in was just Bayer aspirin, right?
Very great point!
It is safe to say that none of us would have excused Trump if he burned or shredded the documents in question.
I concur woth Mixhael Tracey who wrote that this case should have only been a civil dispute.
If Trump had had a bonfire and burned all the boxes the second he was asked about the documents, there wouldn’t be any evidence he ever had any documents, either.
The difference is, he would have been prosecuted for destroying the evidence, while the ruling class gets a pat on the head, a wink, and a jovial warning not to do it again.
Well, a bonfire would have attracted some attention. But if you read the indictment, he did try to hide the classified documents. If he had succeeded, he would never have gotten into trouble. However the whole effort was captured on security video, and furthermore he asked several people to lie about the situation who relayed this to the investigators, which all helped lead to the indictment. It might be true that Hillary Clinton is a smart criminal, and Donald Trump is a stupid criminal. But I don’t think it’s all about the ruling class only going after Trump. They are certainly more eager to go after him, but he makes their job very easy due to his incompetence at concealing the evidence.
The problem is with your theory is that according to the precedent set by the Bill Clinton sock drawer trial, what Trump did is not a crime. So he isn’t a criminal at all. Just persecuted by the ruling class.
Thanks to your mention, I’ve been reading up on the so-called “sock drawer case.” I hadn’t encountered it. For some reason, the news media hasn’t brought it into the discussion. How odd…
Probably because it’s not relevant or the same thing at all.
The tapes were designated as personal records by the National Archives, they were essentially a recorded diary. But the documents Trump took were official government records, produced by the govt, and that were confidential that should never have been transferred out of the government’s hands.
It’s not the same thing. It’s clearly relevant. A President’s recorded records are still official government records and if produced by a President, are produced by the government, The issue is standards, and the integrity of the system not varying according to who the alleged lawbreaker is.
Exactly.
The difference is Hillary/Biden/Pence didn’t try to obstruct justice and willfully keep records when they were told to return them.
Trump’s behavior is more egregious than what Hillary/Biden/Pence did. I don’t see any unlawful detainment after they knew they should return anything. Biden and Pence returned the documents.
I’m fairly certain if Trump just returned these documents when asked and wasn’t on record saying “oh this is a secret I shouldn’t be showing you…also can we just not play ball” we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
We absolutely would be having this discussion. This discussion has been going on for 7 years. Over and over and over. We had this discussion over the non-existent Russian collusion. We had this discussion about Trump denying colluding with Russia. We had this discussion over a phone call. We keep having this discussion because the ruling class wants to have this discussion, but only when the discussion is restricted to people they don’t like. There is never any discussion about anybody who is a member of the ruling class. THAT is the problem.
Except emails can’t be “returned.” They were shared with unauthorized personnel, and not handled according to regulations and law. That bell couldn’t be unrung. And many of them were destroyed so their content and significance could not be assessed.
Not sure about the “shared with unauthorized personnel” portion but Hillary didn’t try to obstruct justice, keep things that didn’t belong to her, and ignore a subpoena.
This is why Trump is in hot water.
No, he’s in hot water because he is Donald Trump. That’s just a fact: whether or not the manner in which this has proceeded justifies the raid and the indictment, there is no question in my mind that if, say, Obama had done exactly the same thing with exactly the same evidence, he would have been quietly permitted to pay a fine and the whole thing would be soft-pedaled. No doubt at all. That’s hwy this is an ethics issue, and why the “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” approach of the Democrats regarding Trump is not, from an ethics perspective, about the evidence. Not after two impeachments, the Russian investigation, and all the prelude to this.
To repurpose the old line, “Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get me,” just because the Left was determined to get Trump for something to stop him doesn’t mean he didn’t do anything wrong.
I don’t believe that, but wouldn’t giving Obama a pass for the same exact conduct be unethical?
Isn’t it good to hold Trump accountable?
You’re arguing that hypothetical, Obama wouldn’t have been charged if he did the same thing, so we shouldn’t charge Trump for ACTUALLY doing it?
What you’re describing is a hypothetical that never even happened.
Trump obviously committed a crime here, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution tell us to bring this case against Trump or anyone else for that matter who commits a crime like this (including Obama).
You’re arguing that hypothetical, Obama wouldn’t have been charged if he did the same thing, so we shouldn’t charge Trump for ACTUALLY doing it?
No. I am stating that if the current standard is that Trump is the only President who will be held accountable for legal breaches, that’s an unethical standard. And that IS the current standard.
Obama was involved with many likely serious violations of law and the Constitution, that if Trump had done the same, there would have been an impeachment or a special prosecutor. Just not this particular set of facts, but the double standard is clear and undeniable. The Durham Report alone outlines Obama (and Biden) engineering the effort to impugn Trump in the Russian hoax. That’s election interference.
That’s unfalsifiable don’t ya think?
It is a fact that Obama or those under his supervision taking cues from him engaged in the kind of conduct that Democrats were primed to pounce on Trump if he did the same. Obama’s IRS deliberately crippled Tea Party advocacy groups in 2012 before the election. The IRS official directly responsible took the 5th. Obama’s pal, the AG refused to appoint an independent prosecutor. You seem intelligent and objective enough—I hope—to concede that Obama was viewed as untouchable by the news media, Congress and law enforcement, and he took full advantage of it. Trump was the exact opposite. Obama, for example, continued bombing in Libya despite a specific Congressional edict limiting the time. Nothing was done; there were no consequences.
Now do Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton destroyed those e-mails.
If Trump did defy a subpoena, then there would have been contempt proceedings. Where were the contempt proceedings?
So deleting e-mails using BleachBit did not obstruct justice?
he should be doing that, along with articles of impeachment for the whole Burisma thing.
Did you all forget that a Presidents can’t be impeached for things that they’ve done before they were elected to office? Impeachment is for dealing with a President that has committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” while IN office.
Impeachment outside of those parameters is a bastardization of the Constitution.
Bush’s virulent ethics counsel, Richard Painter, advocating impeaching Trump before he was sworn in.
What happened to the knowledge base of these people?
Babylon Bee: “Trump Indicted For Keeping Classified Documents In Mar-A-Lago Instead Of Somewhere Secure Like The Trunk Of A Corvette.”
And that line will have more influence over how the average non-lawyer sees this than all the op-eds in the NYT.
And from the Wall Street Journal in an editorial:
“The charges are a destructive intervention into the 2024 election, and the potential trial will hang over the race.”They also make it more likely that the election will be a referendum on Mr. Trump, rather than on Mr. Biden’s economy and agenda or a GOP alternative. This may be exactly what Democrats intend with their charges. Republicans deserve a more competent champion with better character than Mr. Trump. But the indictment might make GOP voters less inclined to provide a democratic verdict on his fitness for a second term. Although the political impact is uncertain, Republicans who are tired of Mr. Trump might rally to his side because they see the prosecution as another unfair Democratic plot to derail him. And what about the precedent? If Republicans win next year’s election, and especially if Mr. Trump does, his supporters will demand that the Biden family be next. Even if Mr. Biden is re-elected, political memories are long. It was once unthinkable in America that the government’s awesome power of prosecution would be turned on a political opponent. That seal has now been broken.”
Bingo. And one reason why the indictment is unethical even if it is legally justifiable.
Committing crimes while running for president should in fact have that effect.
It’s way more unethical to not hold a potential Presidential nominee accountable who obstructs justice and shows secret documents to unauthorized people as a flex.
So you are in favor of impeaching Biden for taking bribes, then?
Please note that Trump was impeached for asking for a second look at the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor.
A sbap impeachment is justified.
100%
Adam Schiff disagreed, as he led a campaign to impeach Trump merely for asking for an investigation.
So when Trunp called Zelenskyy to take a second look at the firing of a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, you were okay with that?
Then why d did the FBI not want to release damning unclassified information about Biden from their paid informant? And, why did so many claim Marjorie Taylor Green broke the law when she talked to reporters about what the judiciary committee saw in the redacted documents?
There is so much willful blindness on both sides that the truth will always be questioned henceforth.
So what was wrong with Trump calling Zelenskyy and asking him to take a second look at FJB’s involvement in the firing of that prosecutor who was investigating Bursima?
I’d say “gasoline” rather than “jet fuel.” Jet fuel is basically diesel. It’s not as explosive as gasoline. Gasoline is dangerously explosive.
Jet fuel is not basically diesel. Jet fuel is kerosene with specific specs. However, you are correct that this is gasoline on the fire, or really, more like a stream pure O2 on the smoldering pile.
An influential conservative wag on Twitter just wrote, “The American political division now seems permanent. It got worse with time and the odds of now avoiding conflict of some sort are low.”
That’s what the Trump indictment does and why it was unethical (incompetent, irresponsible) for Justice to do it. That’s what I have been trying to point out. And I also believe that Justice might have been able to see that the ends weren’t worth the damage from the means, if it were not so partisan and dedicated to remove Trump from the 2024 election by any means necessary.
The Principles of Federal Prosecution say that if Jack Smith thinks that Trump’s prosecution serves an important federal interest and the evidence is objectively factually and legally sufficient, then he’s bound to bring the case even if Trump’s popularity makes a unanimous verdict difficult, and threatens political upheaval.
I have taught those Principles at the Federal Bar, and I don’t know how you can read them that way. They state, “In determining whether a prosecution would serve a substantial federal interest, the attorney for the government should weigh all relevant considerations…The list of relevant considerations is not intended to be all-inclusive. Moreover, not all of the factors will be applicable to every case, and in any particular case one factor may deserve more weight than it might in another case.”
The potential of a prosecution to destroy public trust in US institutions, affect an upcoming Presidential election, appear to show that the party in power is trying to use the justice system for political ends, and to so damage the democracy that its survival is in existential peril are not included in the list of considerations, because they have never been relevant before. They are definitely relevant now.
Comment.
It’s directly from the Principals. They say:
“Where the law and the facts create a sound, prosecutable case, the likelihood of an acquittal due to unpopularity of some aspect of the prosecution or because of the overwhelming popularity of the defendant or his/her cause is not a factor prohibiting prosecution.”
As I pointed out, that’s not the issue here. “Popularity” isn’t the problem.
“unpopularity of some aspect of the prosecution”
The Principles of Federal Prosecution don’t care WHY you or anyone else finds the prosecution unpopular. The prosecution is unpopular with you and others because of political concerns that have nothing to do with the law.
Your claim about the prosecution destroying faith in American institutions ignores that the lack of prosecution Trump in this case carries the same potential….more-so, in fact if Trump isn’t held accountable since most Americans want him held accountable.
Kat Doukas wrote, “The prosecution is unpopular with you and others because of political concerns that have nothing to do with the law.”
I think that single sentence is signature significant. It appears to me that you are trolling. If I were you Kat, I’d tread lightly and don’t pigeonhole everyone commenting on Ethics Alarms.
Kat Doukas wrote, “Your claim about the prosecution destroying faith in American institutions ignores that the lack of prosecution Trump in this case carries the same potential….”
Hogwash, it doesn’t ignore a damn thing. It appears to me that you are the one that’s either being obtuse or outright ignoring things.
Kat Doukas wrote, “….more-so, in fact if Trump isn’t held accountable since most Americans want him held accountable.”
“Most Americans”, how the hell would you know what most Americans want? You’re making claims that are not supportable by fact and don’t you dare cite some nonsensical poll that surveyed between 1000 and 2000 predominantly Democrat sycophants and extrapolate that out to the entire 330 million people in the USA.
Stop trolling Kat.
I made it clear and you are beginning to operate on sheer denial and obstinacy. The issue is the harm the prosecution will do to the democratic process and the country. Alan Dershowitz wrote, “This is a momentous occasion, and not only for President Trump. This moment portends a massive change in the norms of this nation that all Americans who care about the neutral rule of law should pay close attention to, for it raises the specter of the partisan weaponization of the criminal justice system—not just by the Democrats targeting Trump but by Republicans who will certainly retaliate when they regain control of the criminal charging process”—and I just saw it today, after my own analysis. It isn’t that “the prosecution is unpopular,” and if you say it’s unpopular with ME again, you’ll find yourself without commenting privileges. I detest Trump. If you did your homework here, you would know that. I’ve written virtually nothing positive about him in over a hundred posts since 2012. It isn’t the prosecution I object to, but what it’s a part of, and what it will do. We’re already seeing everything I expected. What is wrong, destructive and dumb is ignoring the context of the prosecution decision because of tunnel-vision and refusal to see the writing on the wall.
As for the Federal guidelines, you ignored what I wrote, and I’ve studied the guidelines and used them for years. The consideration at issue is not included in the guidelines because it’s never been present before. The closest was Richard Nixon, and Ford pardoned him to avoid exactly what this indictment threatens to do. The outrageous—but telling—part is that one of the hypocritical Big Lies used against Trump repeatedly was that he was “defying democratic norms”—two Democrat historians made a virtual career out of that claim–and here, not for the first time, are Democrats and the Justice Department defying one of the most established, important, and dangerous to destroy.
And stop citing polls. Most of the Americans who say they want Trump “held accountable” also hate Trump, and don’t comprehend the issues or the law. Most Democrats think Trump colluded with the Russians. Polls say most Americans believe that the prosecutions of Trump are politically motivated. The polls are worthless, and aren’t evidence of anything other than the biases that make Americans stupid.
Speaking of garbage polls, this one by Never-Trumper Bill Kristol backfired: https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1667294284901490691
Gotta love the wording used in polls, like this…
Did you catch that; “LIKELY GOP PRIMARY VOTERS” vs “THE REST OF THE COUNTRY” These biased hacks will do anything to try and project that the GOP is an extreme small percentage of the population and everyone else is on their side, it’s PURE PROPAGANGA!
Yup, no bias in the media at all.
Political polls suck!
You don’t want them to prosecute Trump for the allegedly committing crimes correct?
Kat Doukas wrote, “You don’t want them to prosecute Trump for the allegedly committing crimes correct?”
Either Jack’s well stated and very clear points have blown over your head with the force of a category 5 hurricane making you a blithering idiot or you’re now intentionally trolling. I think you’re trolling for effect.
I ran into this kind of trolling innuendo from a local school board member in an online conversation and no one should tolerate this kind of trolling.
That’s not what Jack said, Kat, and you know it. In the best of all possible worlds Trump WOULD in fact be prosecuted, and so would all the other presidents and high officials who broke the law in whatever way. Unfortunately, like everything else in this world, criminal prosecutions, especially ones like this, don’t happen in a vacuum. Nixon certainly violated the law, and Gerald Ford pardoned him, believing that it was time for the nation to move on and try to heal from Watergate, not keep that wound open so the Democrats and the media could hang Nixon, who they had hated since the Alger Hiss hearings, high.
Arguably Carter violated the law with his freelance diplomacy, including trying to undercut the US at the UN when the first Gulf War was in the offing, but no one ever seriously considered jailing him for violation of the Logan Act, because it would have created more problems than it would have solved. Reagan probably broke the law with Iran-Contra and a few other things, yet, after the White House flipped in 1992, no one seriously considered going back and trying to jail him, nor jail his successor, because it would have looked like what it would have been – partisan political retaliation and an attempt to destroy the other party’s legacy. We know for a fact that Clinton perjured himself about committing adultery in the White House, but no one on any level even looked at trying to jail him for that, although there was a partisan attempt at impeachment which showed or should have showed everyone the futility of doing that if you don’t have the votes for conviction locked down. There’s been a lot of noise about GWB being a tyrant, a warmonger and a criminal who should be warming a prison cell, but no one seriously tried to take action against him. You already heard the rest above, but I’ll reiterate that no one took action to “lock her up,” much as she may have been worthy of it.
Apart from Teapot Dome and Watergate, cabinet-level officials and up who go to jail for offenses are few and far between. A few officials who HAVE gotten into serious trouble, like Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams, were essentially “fall guys” so that the media and prosecutors looking for scalps would be appeased, and were later pardoned, because if someone takes the fall to save bigger fish, things should be made right later. That said, those who got that break were usually NOT those who simply tried to enrich themselves, for whom there is VERY limited sympathy and the trial of whom would make few waves. The only one who still defended Albert Fall after he went to jail was his wife, who maintained to her dying day that it was all a setup, never apparently wondering once how her husband got so rich, so fast.
The fact is that any kind of prosecution of a highly political (or sometimes even non-political) figure is fraught with major considerations outside the law and outside ethics. It can almost never be 100% “clean.” If the other party does it, it’s going to be seen as retaliation at best, the criminalization of politics at worst. If the person’s own party does it, it’s likely to be seen as dirty intrigue or rival power blocs going after one another, maybe even someone doing the other party’s dirty work for them. There was always be a question of who squeezed who and who gave up who and why. There’s also always going to be the question of who benefited by this, and whether that person had more to do with this than they let on.
Maybe in other cases the American public could be persuaded to look the other way, or persuaded that the prosecution was strictly (STRICTLY, I tell you) on the merits. The closest we came to that so far was Watergate, where Nixon’s activities were obviously criminal, wrong in and of themselves, and unique. Nion’s support, both public and Congressional, had also finally collapsed. The alleged wrong acts here are mostly administrative in nature and, as we can see, not at all unique. Trump’s support, both public and at least in the House, has NOT collapsed. This is taking the step we decided not to take in 1974. Actually, it’s the culmination of taking a lot of steps this government, and particularly one party, previously never took, but started going down the path of in 2016, when its operatives started pleading with electors to simply ignore the results of the election and outright hand the presidency to Hillary, even though she had lost the election fair and square under the rules, and would have lost the popular vote too if not for running up the vote in CA. Jack’s already run through a lot of what went on 2016-2020, but I’ll add on the deliberate crashing of the economy and obstruction of handling not one but two crises.
Think about this. This is a party who treated the ordinary people of this country like afterthoughts, good only as long as they voted for them, now wanting to apply the law selectively to destroy the one president in recent history who DIDN’T treat them like afterthoughts and tried to make their lives better. What’s more, they’ve timed this effort to hit just in time for the upcoming election, so that, no matter who the opposition runs, the election will be a referendum on Trump. It won’t be a contest of ideas, and it won’t be a referendum on the current administration, which has left MUCH to be desired. It will be a referendum on the one man they have painted as the enemy of everything they claim to stand for but really don’t give a damn about. You mark my words, the day after this country votes for a second term for Biden is the day EVERYTHING changes.
“Arguably Carter violated the law with his freelance diplomacy, including trying to undercut the US at the UN when the first Gulf War was in the offing, but no one ever seriously considered jailing him for violation of the Logan Act, because it would have created more problems than it would have solved.”
No “arguably” about it. Carter did break the law, and he did so knowing that nobody would have the guts to charge him. So did Reagan; so did Clinton and Obama. You forgot about FDR, who secretly defied Congress and the law in the runup to WWII.
I would like to see the Justice Department make an announcement that the Trump indictment signals anew policy of enforcing the law regarding Presidents and other officials illegally keeping official documents, with Biden, Carter, Bush, Clinton and Obama being given 90 days to list and return all such documents or be subject to prosecution.
It’s way more harmful to the country to not prosecute Trump.
It’s also not the concern (or shouldn’t be) of the justice department what potential harm charging someone with a crime will have.
Any harm done to the democratic process (if any; I still don’t believe this argument) or the country was created by Trump breaking the law.
Holding him accountable for his crimes is the right thing to do.
Upholding the rule of law is also important to the democratic process and for our country.
You’re either just sticking your fingers in your ears or genuinely dense. It’s not worth arguing: mind’s made up, facts don’t matter, plus you don’t know what you’re talking about. I trained as a prosecutor, and was one, briefly. The prosecutor’s client is the public, society and the state: of course it’s a concern what potential harm charging someone with a crime will have.
Move on to other topics where you aren’t just polluting the discussion with ignorance and weak arguments. this is your last comment on this one.
Now do Hillary Clinton.
Which most Americans would that be?
I find this whole discussion tiresome. It seems the left-leaning advocates have no shortage of excuses for Democratic malfeasance and ‘yeah buts’ to explain how ‘our guys are not as bad as your guys’ while the right-leaning advocates have difficulty demonstrating how bad the Democrat’s bad actors are. This is because the politicization of the unelected governmental apparatus is such, that by in large bad, illegal, unethical behavior by Democrats has not received the same degree of investigation and publication as that of Trump.
Two Democrat-led impeachments, two special prosecutors, and multiple states attorney generals are all hell-bent on destroying Trump. Put the Democrats under the same microscope with the same zeal and then you can call it fair and unbiased. It is amazing with all that scrutiny into Trump’s actions and dealings, they really haven’t come up with more wrongdoing.
I am convinced if you look long enough and hard enough, you will find almost anyone guilty of some offense, unethical behavior, or poor judgment. Likewise, I can guarantee if you don’t look or perform a cursory ‘wink, wink, nod, nod’ inquiry of someone or organization, or event, you won’t find anything. Slow-walking investigations and releasing findings after their impact is blunted is also unethical and a disservice to the country. Claiming not being able to comment on a never-ending investigation, Hunter Biden perhaps is just a dodge.
The lament that we should have better candidates is a deflection away from the discussion we should be having. We should be addressing the very real problem of the weaponization of governmental agencies for political gain. Lois Lerner existed before Trump and escaped accountability. The FBI lying to the FISA court is not casual bias. It is clearly intent. The one service that Trump has performed for the country is to give an inkling of how partisan and corrupt the various federal agencies are. We need to stop blindly supporting politicians based on their party affiliation and start demanding better from all branches of government. But since the electorate keeps sending the same lying, self-serving, narcissists back to Washington, why should they do anything different?
My legal ethics listserv is going nuts over the Trump indictment. The group is, I would guess, about 90% Democrat and about 75% Trump-Deranged, but this observation was interesting:
“It appears the classified document criminal case always needed to be brought in Florida, yet a grand jury was empaneled in DC for that investigation….”
If the charge is removing them from the Whitehouse then DC is the appropriate venue. Since the charges ended up being keeping the documents when the national archives wanted them back and obstruction, those things happened in Florida, and there was also a Florida grand jury (that voted out the charges) so all the niceties were met.
If removing them from the White House was the primary charge, then Joe Biden would have to be charged as well. What allegedly justifies the indictment is entirely Trump’s conduct in Florida. This was almost certainly unethical forum shopping. The assignment of a Trump–apponted judge to the case is karma.
I’d like to take threads like this and ghost of Christmas yet-to-come 2015 Jack.
Please, go ahead! I’ll stand by all of those 2015 posts about how awful Donald Trump is. I wish the GOP and the other candidates had taken my advice.
I think people are overlooking how in heck all of these people (Trump, Clintons, Biden, leaked on the internet, etc.) had these documents in the first place. I mean who’s guarding our secrets? It appears that it may have been Don Knotts. It also looks like our secrets would have been safer in the vaults of Coca-Cola or Kentucky Fried Chicken. I am terrified by the way our documents have been guarded our enemies already know everything. Trump could not have sold them to anyone because who is going to pay for something they already know? I do not care if it is the president or the White House janitor they should have never been allowed to be in their long-term possession of those documents at all. I am saying this whole debacle should have never been possible. I fail to see how any of these people who had access could be prosecuted. It was the government’s lack of policy and procedure that are at fault. Has that systemic problem been addressed? I bet not.