…he would announce that he was withdrawing from the Presidential race immediately, because the prosecutions he faces, just or unjust, will be a destructive distraction from the election as well as an impediment to him serving as President if he were nominated and elected.
And if I were an aardvark, I could save money on groceries by eating ants and termites.
Trump won’t do this, of course (that is, drop out, not eat ants and termites), but it is the only ethical alternative. A lawyer facing a single serious indictment would step away from his or her law firm. An ethical judge would resign. A doctor facing indictments would take a leave of absence. A general facing such legal jeopardy would retire. The United States cannot have a Presidential candidate laboring under the shadow of multiple criminal prosecutions any more than it can afford to have a mentally declining President who serves as a puppet for aspiring totalitarians. Trump continuing his candidacy increases the likelihood of both.
If Richard Nixon had been like Trump—a toxic narcissist—he wouldn’t have resigned, and the nation would have been roiled and scarred by a genuine impeachment process. Clinton is like Trump—maybe a teeny-weeny bit less of a narcissist, but not much—and he should have resigned as the truth of the Monica Lewinsky allegations emerged. The nation and the Presidency—and his party—would have been far better off today if he had, and Clinton’s scandal was not even in the same metaphorical ballpark as Trump’s, which also includes a sexual assault civil ruling.
At this point, Trump continuing to seek the Presidency can only do damage, and the question is just “How much?” I don’t want to think about how much. His entire career has been built on a foundation of stubbornness, resilience and a refusal to admit defeat: quitting his quest for redemption goes against his core. Real patriots and great leaders, however, can muster the character and courage to do what needs to be done even when it violates all of their baser instincts. Unfortunately, I am not an aardvark, and Donald Trump is neither a real patriot or a great leader.
This all came crashing through my skull when I listened to Trump’s rambling reaction to his latest indictment. Toward the end, he says, “It would be wonderful if we could devote our full [attention] to making America great again.” He’s right about that, and we could, if he would just shut up and get out of the way.
History will be much kinder to him, I suspect, if he could bring himself to do that, but it’s pointless to even talk about it, I guess. If Trump can’t win, then he wants to be a martyr, and he apparently doesn’t care what wreckage he leaves behind.
Facing what are the likely scenarios over the next 15 months, I wish I could be an aardvark.
Ethics Alarms 
Counterpoint- as soon as Trump surrenders, the democrats have won over ALL future opposition candidates.
Their game plan successful, they will expend all efforts on all republicans to use the federal government to destroy them.
I agree with your counterpoint. If there were no indictments and Trump withdrew from the race, it would be the most ethical thing to do and I would support it. But since there is evidence that the Democrats and their allies in the news media are using the process as punishment in order to derail the chances of a political opponent, I am less inclined to want him to withdraw.
It would be better if the Republicans could put forth a good candidate with the ability to communicate effectively and ethics as pure as Ivory soap that would take the nomination from Trump and then the process of bogging an opponent down with legal problems will be less of an attractive strategy in the future. The chances of that happening are about the same as all of us turning into aardvarks.
But since there is evidence that the Democrats and their allies in the news media are using the process as punishment in order to derail the chances of a political opponent, I am less inclined to want him to withdraw.
Makes no sense. It’d done; whether it was fair or right doesn’t matter. If these are bogus, it would be known until after the election. One has to deal with the conditions that exist—concluding they are unfair is just an impediment to responsible action.
Do you remember Maraxus?
You seem to be suggesting that we give in to Maraxus!
“It’d done; whether it was fair or right doesn’t matter.”
PLBLBLGHSGGJHTSTPFFFFFFT?????!!!!
If all the railroading of Donald Trump is indeed unjust and wrong, and it is allowed to happen, then it’s been rewarded. How on earth does anyone come to the conclusion that it’s best to just let the unethical entity of the democrat-machine continue to plow forward once it knows unjust action won’t be opposed?
Unbelievable.
You can still oppose it, cite it, complain about it, all sorts of things. But you can’t unring the bell, and that election was RUNG.
Unfortunately we aren’t only talking about his election denialism. He’s been and is being pursued for charges that exist entirely “to get him”.
And stepping down from the race because of any of that is tantamount to handing the democrats the Soviet-esque power they need for one party rule.
Even if he were to say “I’m stepping down because of my election denialism”- that wouldn’t alleviate the obvious. The political persecution by the democrats worked.
And it’s worked from day 1 when they treated him nefariously like no president has ever been treated.
Well over half his “exceptional behavior” that “no other president” has engaged in was purely reactive to being treated the way no other president has ever been treated.
“He’s been and is being pursued for charges that exist entirely “to get him”.”
Which specific charges meet that standard, in your view? All of them? Or are any of them legitimate?
“And stepping down from the race because of any of that is tantamount to handing the democrats the Soviet-esque power they need for one party rule.”
If I understand Jack’s argument, part of it is that if Trump were to resign, Republicans could nominate a candidate with a higher chance of winning and a lower chance of being susceptible to criminal charges and scandal narratives, however legitimate or otherwise. Which would put the Dems in a worse position for the goal you attribute to them.
Remember Rick Perry? He was a popular Republican candidate for president. He probably would have been president. However, the media said he needed to withdraw because his family once rented a place that had a rock that at one time had a word spray painted on it that some people said could be interpreted as some kind of racial slur. That was the standard. The media could take down any viable Republican candidate with something so nonsensical.
This led me to tell people that the media chooses the Republican Presidential Candidate, the DNC chooses the Democratic Candidate, the people choose none of them.
In comes Trump. The media chose him. They regretted it, then found that they couldn’t UNCHOOSE him. So, the DOJ decided to eliminate him and they tried over and over and over again. The DOJ has lied and fabricated so much evidence, that I don’t believe any ‘evidence’ they claim to have against Trump. No sane person would. Trump lies a lot, but his lies pale in comparison to the lies told by the DOJ. You can’t even see Trump’s lies when stacked against the lies of the DOJ. In the last 6 years, I don’t think I have seen a single DOJ employee who hasn’t lied, fabricated evidence, and/or violated the rights of American citizens with improper surveillance or censorship. List all of Trumps lies and tell me how they compare to the systematic censorship of all Americans on the internet?
If Trump pulls out of the race because of the harassment of the DOJ, democracy is done in this country. It means the bureaucracy can eliminate any candidate that is a threat to them merely by indicting them ahead of an election. I don’t see why this is difficult to understand. EVEN IF TRUMP IS GUILTY, he still needs to continue on if we want to have any hope of democracy surviving.
He should pull out of the race because 1) regardless of why, the legal issues will make a coherent campaign and public deliberation impossible 2) he disqualified himself by his conduct after the 2020 election 3) it’s ridiculous to run on the argument “let’s teach this people a lesson that they can’t play politics that way be electing someone we wouldn’t have voted for based on his character and qualifications” TWICE 3) The Democrats have proven themselves to be dangerous, and have engaged in more than enough incompetent and anti-Democratic acts that they are set up for defeat by an articulate, qualified candidate who isn’t a shameless asshole imitating James Michael Curley. 4) Trump is too old, and should say so while withdrawing.
I remember that Rick Perry story, but I don’t remember anyone saying he should resign over it. Can you cite any stories making this argument? I can’t find any, but I did find articles showing he was criticized by Republicans such as Mitt Romney and Herman Cain, not just the left. If it was the entire “media” making this argument this shouldn’t be hard to find.
I’m also only aware of one piece of fabricated evidence from the DOJ involving Trump, in the Carter Page case (which was separate from the larger Trump inquiry). What were the others? And don’t say “the Steele dossier” because that was a raw intelligence document that involved intel from many sources, that was never presented as fact and never a huge part of the Russia investigation either. The DOJ didn’t just wake up one day and decide to fabricate a Russia investigation; it was necessitated by a Trump associate telling an Australian diplomat that Russia had hacked the DNC. The “Russia hoax” narrative is incredibly exaggerated and relies on plenty of fabrications of its own.
It’s wise to be skeptical of the government but in this case we have Trump not even denying that he took documents, only making ludicrous and contradictory arguments that they belonged to him and he declassified everything with his mind, plus a tape recording of him admitting he didn’t do that and seemingly waving around classified docs regarding Iran to impress a friend. If you won’t trust the DOJ I don’t begrudge you that, but at least trust the evidence of your eyes and ears.
See the 2011 EA posts on Perry here. He had lots of problems; at the time, I didn’t think the Niggerhead nonsense was a decisive one. Perry’s main problem was that he just didn’t seem very smart in the debates.
That was my understanding as well. I remember calls for him to step down after he couldn’t remember the third department he wanted to cut, but not the rock thing.
Yup, that was the tipping point. I doubt one in a thousand voters remembered the phony rock controversy.
and Bingo was hi name o
No previous opposition candidate has ever behaved as Trump has, so it’s impossible to know whether the tactics used against him—legitimate or otherwise—would be used, let alone successfully, against a future opponent.
Here’s the thing, I’m not a fan of Trump (didn’t for him in 2016 or 2020), however, what you’re saying is a load of crap. Even assuming that all he’s being accused/indicted for now is true and legit, which is debatable, how do you justify how the Dems and MSM treated him while President up till the Nov. 2020?
It is clear now that Dems, assisted by most of MSM and many in the government bureaucracy had worked together (read conspired) to take him down, to ensure that he’s destroyed, and to make an example of him.
Trump may have behaved like no other POTUS or opposition politician before him, but what was done to him and the way he has treated (before any actual misconduct on his part) was truly unprecedented and sets a very dangerous precedent.
Too vague to respond to. What, exactly, am I supposed to be “justifying?”
Are you really arguing that Dems and media just decided out of the blue to treat the most recent Republican president differently than any president had ever been treated? That there was *nothing* about Trump’s character or behavior in 2015 that explained this, even if it doesn’t justify it?
Well, they promoted a hoax invented by Hillary Clinton.
And they even forged a dossier to convince the Justice Department to lend the illusion of credibility to this hoax.
This was all in the Durham Report.
Cite the portions of the Durham report that say this. You can’t, because they don’t exist. The Steele dossier was not “forged,” and Clinton’s actions were not the basis of the investigation—the Durham report acknowledged that the predicate was Papadopolous’s comments, it just then laughably argues that this wasn’t enough for the FBI to investigate. It also says that they could find no evidence of political or partisan bias in the FBI’s investigation. Your claims here are simply lies.
This is correct.
The Durham Report revealed that the Justice Department now has the credibility of Wanetta Gibson.
Which president has been targeted by his own Justice Department to give the illusion of credibility to a hoax invented by a political opponent, even going so far as to actually lie to a court to obtain a FISA warrant.
None. Again, the Russia investigation was predicated on the actions of Trump’s own campaign staff, primarily George Papadopoulos. You’re right about the lie in the Carter Page FISA warrant, but that had little to do with the Trump Russia investigation.
Not sure I can take you seriously after that comment. The Durham report made it crystal clear there was never a justification for the Russia investigation.
The Durham report *asserted* there was no justification for the Russia investigation. It still admits that Papadopolous telling an Australian ambassador that Russia had hacked the DNC was the inciting event that caused the investigation. You can agree with Durham’s conclusion that this wasn’t enough to justify an investigation; I find that conclusion ridiculous. And of course, once the investigation started, there were many other Trump-Russia connections found. Durham also concluded that there was no evidence of a partisan or political motive behind the Russia investigation; you are free to find that part ridiculous in turn, but let’s not cherry-pick his findings.
Go on, what are these likely scenarios?
Does anyone remember Maraxus?
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3857818#p3857818
– Maraxus
– Maraxus
– Maraxus
– Maraxus
it does appear that Maraxus’s ideas are the rules now.
Do we give in to Maraxus?
I hear you, however, I believe a case can be made that the prosecutions are political and never would have been filed if it wasn’t Trump or was a Democrat. In a perfect world where we could trust our DOJ and State PAs to not be partisan hacks and to only file charges in good faith, I agree Trump should suspend his candidacy. But, we don’t live in a perfect world and I don’t see how Trump dropping out would do anything other than set the stage for Dems to use a similar tactic on any other candidate they fear. Trump is a buffoon and I have no desire to see him in the WH again. But, I think giving in to this sort of weaponization of our Justice system is the wrong thing to do. I just wish we had a more moral and sympathetic candidate to fight against it.
There is no case that the classified documents charges are political. In fact there’s a much better case that if anyone but a former president had held on to classified documents for so long while refusing to give them back, they’d be in prison by now.
I disagree. Having formerly held a TS/SCI clearance, I’ve seen lots of people get caught with classified material and not be criminally charged unless they were retaining the stuff for nefarious reasons. Further, the whole non-political thing falls apart considering Hillary Clinton had all sorts of classified info on her email server and was not prosecuted. In fact, she deleted thousands of subpoenaed emails rather than give them up so investigators could determine how egregious her conduct was. We also have a failure to prosecute Joe even though he had classified materials from years ago stored in numerous places.
Clinton didn’t “delete thousands of subpoenaed emails.” She ordered emails to be deleted before she was subpoenaed.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/10/trump-cant-get-it-right-on-clintons-email-deletion-229469
She claims that the emails that were deleted were personal rather than work-related. Maybe she lied; there’s no way to know. That’s part of why her using a private server was so irresponsible. But that’s very different from specific documents that the Archives knew were missing, which both they and Donald Trump knew were in his possession, and which he refused to give back.
Intent is a huge component in cases like this and they can get very complicated. Hillary wasn’t charged because there was no confidence that her intent to hide or misused classified documents could be proven. Trump has made prosecutors’ job very easy in this case because his intent has been so clear: the Archives asked for the documents back and he said no.
Your Biden example is even weaker because Biden immediately complied by giving the documents back when they were discovered. Trump fought tooth and nail to keep the documents. And after yesterday we have a new charge in that case of him ordering underlings to hide evidence.
“She ordered emails to be deleted before she was subpoenaed.”
A distinction without a difference. Both are considered spoilation, which is illegal.
Deleting emails is only spoilation if the intent is to destroy evidence that may be used in an investigation against you. Hard to prove that’s the intent if you delete the emails before the investigation has begun. I don’t begrudge anyone assuming that was Clinton’s intent, but it’s still an assumption, as thin as any assumption about Trump that isn’t backed up by hard evidence.
Sorry, lame. Hillary had every reason to believe that there would be an investigation. She’s a lawyer, supposedly a an accomplished one. You nicely articulated what her defense lawyer would argue, but it’s a Hail Mary. At best.
This isn’t what happened. She had a reoccurring date every month or so to have her emails deleted.
That’s normal.
And what of smashing cell phones with hammers?
BullShit! There is absolutely NO mens rea required for the Documents charges. There is prosecutorial discretion, since as above many folks were no Criminally charged. During the Hilary episode thee were at least three persons charged and convicted of the exact same charges. One guy selling, one who took home pictures of where he worked, and one fella who as I remember was an idiot. The whole state of mind or intent is a Red Herring and a Strawman.
The word “intent” is literally all over the specific statutes Trump is charged under, but go off.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/363194-former-fbi-agent-changed-comeys-language-of-clinton-email-use-to/
The former FBI official, who was recently fired from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia team over messages critical of President Trump, reportedly edited a key phrase that removed possible legal implications in former FBI Director James Comey’s statement about his decision on the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Peter Strzok, who served as a counterintelligence expert at the bureau, changed the description of Clinton’s actions in Comey’s statement, CNN reported Monday, citing U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
One source told the news outlet that electronic records reveal that Strzok changed the language from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,” scrubbing a key word that could have had legal ramifications for Clinton. An individual who mishandled classified material could be prosecuted under federal law for “gross negligence.”
Strzok, who served as the No. 2 official leading the probe into the Clinton email server, has been thrust into the center of controversy after news of his dismissal from Comey’s team.
The archivist was not a judge.
Which is beside the point on whether or not it was legal for FJB to take those documents in the first place.
It doesn’t matter that the archivist was not a judge; whoever signed off on the raid was.
Nor does it matter whether it was legal for Biden to take the documents, because Trump isn’t charged with taking documents either. He’s charged with retaining them after the government demanded them back.
What about just retaining stuff for non-nefarious reasons?
It happens. Packing up an office and docs get mixed up. Box goes into closet at home and forgotten about. Marriage goes south, soon to be ex finds docs and decides to screw someone over. Saw that one a couple times. No criminal charges. Sometimes loss of security clearance.
You’re talking about exactly what happened with Joe Biden, so why did you claim that there was a “failure to prosecute” in his case?
Unless I missed something, Joe Biden hasn’t been charged with any crime associated with his illegal retention and storage of classified documents.
Yes, which fits with what you said here:
“It happens. Packing up an office and docs get mixed up. Box goes into closet at home and forgotten about. Marriage goes south, soon to be ex finds docs and decides to screw someone over. Saw that one a couple times. No criminal charges.”
My point is that people generally don’t get prosecuted for accidentally taking home classified material. Hell, I’ve seen people take it home on purpose and not get prosecuted unless they were trying to do something nefarious – for example, posting it on social media for their buddies like the National Guardsman just did.
General Petraeus shared classified documents with his girlfriend! No indictment. No jail time.
I saw a submarine CO put classified material on his personal laptop and take it home to work on it. When he got caught he lost his command, security clearance, and had to retire early, but no prosecution. No jail time. I know of many other examples over the 30 years I spent in the Navy. In only a couple egregious cases did someone get prosecuted and go to jail. From what I’ve seen, Trump’s prosecution stinks of politics.
The submarine CO did not have the benefit of Navy v. Egan.
Neither did FJB.
John, Trump isn’t being charged with taking the documents home either. He’s being charged with willful retention and obstruction.
I believe he’s being prosecuted under the espionage act, which means he’s being prosecuted for the classified docs since the act wouldn’t even apply without them. Correct?
Patraeus did plead guilty to a misdemeanor, though. And the decision not to charge him seems to have not been an easy one. Different prosecutors will make different decisions in these matters. That is not enough alone to prove political or selective prosecution.
Correct, for the part of the Espionage Act about willful retention:
“willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;”
Incredibly unlikely that Trump would have been charged had he returned the documents without a hassle, as Biden and Pence did.
FJB and Pence were not allowed to take the documents in the first place.
As for who was entitled to receive the documents, Trump was disputing that.
Or could the federal government just take any documents they please by claiming the documents are classified.
Was he allowed to take those documents in the first place?
No. Neither was Trump. And neither were charged for taking documents, as you know.
You are right, of course, but the Trump Deranged refuse to admit it. Sure the prosecution is political. Ask yourself this: if Obama had done exactly what Trump did, is there any chance at all that his home would have been raised and indictments sought?
Anyone who says “Sure! He would have been treated exactly the same!” Maybe Trump’s conduct deserves all of it, but if a double standards are at play (they are)that’s unethical. If partisan agendas are the cause of the double standards (they are), that’s dangerous and unethical.
My answer to that question is “I have no way of knowing,” and we can’t base our justice system on hypotheticals. The fact is that Obama *didn’t* do that, so the facts we have show that the former president is being treated differently because his *conduct* was different.
Joe Biden had classified documents in multiple locations and had no authority to take them in the first place. No charges for mishandling classified documents. Same for Pence and we have no idea what may be in Obama’s possession.
As far as I know there is no evidence that Trump failed to return anything ordered by a court. Papers in his possession were requested to be returned by the archivist. Trump believed he had a right to retain them and was in the process of negotiating what would be returned. The archivist tired of negotiating and sought the DOJ to retrieve them using threats of criminal prosecution . The archivist never sought the courts to intervene in this case which was a civil matter to begin with.
It wasn’t a civil matter, clearly; it’s a criminal matter, hence the criminal indictments.
You don’t know that Trump “believed” the documents to be his, only that he said so. I can say I believe my neighbor’s car belongs to me, but if I proceed to steal it, that neighbor has no obligation to negotiate with me or sue me in a civil trial; he can go straight to the authorities and have me arrested. The Archives were patient enough with Trump, and you’re arguing they should have treated him even more delicately.
The differences between this and Biden and Pence cases are already clear and have been pointed out earlier in the comments.
You seem to think having a two-tiered justice system justifies having a two-tiered justice system. Your circular logic is not impressive.
Completely non-responsive. Nothing I have said has justified a “two-tiered justice system.” In fact, I have pointed out clear distinctions between the Trump case and other cases people have brought up in order to claim Trump is being selectively prosecuted. Ignoring those distinctions won’t make them go away, and asserting the same conclusions over and over again does not prove them.
Everything you have said has justified a two-tiered justice system. You excuse Democrats for doing the exact same thing as Trump by saying it cannot be the same thing because they were not prosecuted. The prosecution is being applied by party affiliation, not by evidence. That is the entire point. Either they are all guilty, or none of them are.
“You excuse Democrats for doing the exact same thing as Trump by saying it cannot be the same thing because they were not prosecuted.”
Impossible to get that from what I’ve written. I’ve said Biden and Pence did not do the same because they gave the documents back. Trump is specifically charged with NOT giving the documents back. In Hillary’s case, there was nothing TO give back, because they were emails. You either need to read my comments more carefully, or stop lying about them.
Uh huh, and how did you characterize Hilary’s destruction of her emails? I read your comments. They are logically incoherent. You make constant appeals to authority. You make ad hominem attack arguments. You dissemble.
I will be perfectly happy to agree that Trump should be prosecuted right after you agree that both Clintons and Biden deserve to be prosecuted to the exact same extent. I expect you to make that admission right after hell freezes over, pigs fly and climate change actually melts the polar ice caps.
“Uh huh, and how did you characterize Hilary’s destruction of her emails?”
You can look back and read how I characterized that and respond to it instead of asking me to repeat myself.
I will “agree that both Clintons and Biden deserve to be prosecuted to the exact same extent”
as soon as you, or anyone, rebuts my point that none of them did what Trump is being charged for. But you won’t, because you can’t, because the extent of Trump’s behavior goes far beyond anything they did, as I have clearly shown.
The cases are different. Agreed. Clinton illegally handled classified information in an insecure manner that could have realistically led to serious security breaches, and destroyed evidence. Biden took classified documents, stored them in areas that were not secure, and was only VP at the time, without even a colorable claim that he had a right to them. I never advocated prosecuting Hillary, because I believe that Presidential elections should not be decided by prosecutors, and neither Biden nor Trump should be prosecuted for doing what I strongly suspect has been an ongoing Presidential breach of the laws for many decades: a change of policy on the matter should have been communicated to all living POTUSes along with a period in which they could surrender all questionable documents with no questions asked.
But it seems so clear that the prosecution of Trump for the Mar-A-Largo documents is political and partisan, both in its context and its timing, I do not see how any objective observer, regardless of political views, can deny it in good faith.
“a change of policy on the matter should have been communicated to all living POTUSes along with a period in which they could surrender all questionable documents with no questions asked.”
They essentially gave Trump that chance, without making a policy change at all. He had over a year to return the documents. Due to a toxic mixture of ego and bad legal advice, he said “No, they’re mine.” Would you expect him to act any differently had this policy change been made?
In my view it is the brazenness of Trump’s lawbreaking that got him where he is now, not political or partisan targeting. Even Ty Cobb, Trump’s lawyer during the Mueller investigation, has said “This is such a tight case, the evidence is so overwhelming.” Not prosecuting Trump would have been a political decision too, and one that would essentially make former and potential future presidents above the law.
Even Ty Cobb, Trump’s lawyer during the Mueller investigation, has said “This is such a tight case, the evidence is so overwhelming.”
Ty should have kept quiet, and it was, as I posted at the time, unethical for him to opine on the matter as Trump’s former attorney. Best not to appeal to the authority of someone violating the ethics rules….
Of course it was unethical of him to say this; he’s a Trump lawyer. My point is that even many who would otherwise be biased in Trump’s favor think this case is exceptionally strong. Is that an appeal to authority or an admission against interest?
Appeal to authority. I know Ty. He’s a good lawyer, great guy. No lawyer who ever worked for Trump is biased in favor of him. Almost all of them hate him: he’s the epitome of a terrible client. The likely bias at play was against Trump, not for him.
With Clinton, it was worse because she actually deleted the e-mails and smashed cell phones with hammers.
For FJB and Pence, they did not have the authority to remove the documents in the first place.
My understanding is that a SCOTUS ruling going back to the Clinton Admin gave outgoing POTUS wide discretion on what the can keep. In short, it’s up to POTUS, not the archivist. I believe the only reason it’s being persecuted criminally is because of the classified docs and it’s Trump. I don’t believe for a second Obama would’ve been prosecuted for the same.
Cite the ruling. I am certain your understanding is incorrect. No respected legal scholar has made this argument.
Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration
That ruling was about Clinton keeping taped interviews with a historian, which Judicial Watch said violated the PRA. But those records would likely match the description of personal records in the PRA as “of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.”
Classified documents, obviously, would not fit that bill.
The PRA also requires the president categorize records as personal or presidential during their time in office, and the ruling in this case did not change that.
And of course, as Andy McCarthy has pointed out, Trump is not being charged under the PRA, but the Espionage Act, which is not modified by the PRA.
There are plenty of articles excoriating Trump’s comparison to the Clinton “sock drawer” case which Tom Fitton, the head of Judicial Watch, brought in the first place—a case that Fitton lost and either still does not understand, or is lying about. Here is just one of them:
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-presidential-records-act-clinton's-socks-and-trump's-boxes
The President, after all, is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988)
Another irrelevant point from you. He’s not the president anymore. Whether Trump declassified the documents as president has nothing to do with whether they are presidential or personal records, and he has no right to keep presidential records after his term. And there is plenty of evidence that he didn’t declassify all of the documents he retained—including his own words, on tape.
No it was a civil matter and the DOJ ratcheted it up to obstruction because he was using legal means to retain them.
What judge ordered. Trump to return the documents? None
If the archivist was at the end of her patience then she should suit in the courts for their return and not use the police to recover documents of disputed ownership. She failed to do that.
A Federal Magistrate named Bruce Reinhardt who donated to Obama and Jeb Bush was elevated to the position in 2018 signed off on the warrant to raid Mar a Lago. Despite Keith Obermans false claims he was not appointed by Trump. Trump was just president when he was sworn in. Magistrates are appointed by a majority of district court judges. He -Reinhardt- was named in a lawsuit by Jeffrey Epstein victims because he switched sides during Epstein trial.
If the purpose of the raid was for the unlawful removal of classified documents the government would be on firmer ground charging Biden or Pence. Neither of whom had the ability to declassify any document
Nonsense. There is no serious legal dispute about the ownership of the documents. They belonged to the archives. Only extreme Trump partisans argue otherwise. And we have Trump on tape saying he didn’t declassify all the documents that he retained. There was no reason to charge Pence or Biden because they gave the documents back willingly and voluntarily as soon as they were discovered.
Therte was a serious legal dispute, which no court have ever ruled on.
The Archivist could have simply sued for injunctive relief to compel the return of the documents. If there was no serious legal dispute, getting an injunction would have been the easiest case.
Which is beside the point to the issue of whether or not they were legally allowed to take the documents in the first place.
The whole giving docs back as soon as they were found may hold water for Pence, but falls apart for Biden. He held onto documents for years. He stashed them in various locations, offices and his garage. Locations where his crackhead son had easy access to them – for years. There is no way, imho, that you can claim JB isn’t at least as bad as Trump on the classified docs. Further, you have no way to say with certainty that JB turned over docs as soon as they were found considering it took him years to do so and even then he didn’t until Trump’s mess blew up.
We don’t know that Biden knew what was in those boxes or that he stashed them there himself. He claims that aides found classified info there, immediately reported it, and then he returned them the next day. He also voluntarily had the FBI search other locations for more documents.
That is very different from the Trump case where the Archives asked for docs back, and Trump said no. The issues are intent and willfulness.
It’s annoying that I have to keep repeating this.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-us-department-of-justice-michael-pence-7e616d65db8a76a078d1ec9268c13a77
You seem overly eager to press the “I believe” button regarding Joe’s story about how the documents were found. You also seem incurious about the timing of when documents Joe had for years were found or why Joe’s lawyers, who had no security clearance, were allowed to search around for docs before the FBI showed up. There cases are a lot more similar than you let on.
Never said I believed Joe. Just that his behavior around this case makes it a lot harder to prove intent than in Trump’s case. And since there was no fight with the Archives over whether to return the documents, it wouldn’t make sense to charge him with the same crimes Trump is being charged with.
So, just because some grand jury indicted him. it became a criminal matter.
Remember, a grand jury indicted Rick Perry for something that was not a crime.
According to you. There was reasonable disagreement on that point.
And almost every serious legal expert, on both the right and left, agrees that the crimes Trump is charged with here are very serious, and that his actions likely meet the definitions of those crimes. You’ve provided no serious rebuttal to this.
That is a very good point.
It had been treated as a civil matter.
Your argument assumes that the President had no right to keep the documents.
That was under dispute.
He’s not the president anymore, and they weren’t personal documents, so no, he has no right to keep them. That’s not an assumption, it’s the law. And no serious person disputes it.
Remember when Rick Perry was prosecuted for acts which were not a crime at all?
I had to refresh my memory, but yes. I do now, and I think it goes straight to my point about not giving in to that sort of interference by people who are SUPPOSED to serve protect us from criminals but instead choose to serve and protect their political interests.
See this comments on this thread on another forum.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3857818#p3857818
Let me know what you think.
I think you seem really obsessed with basing our entire justice system on a random Internet commenter who made you mad neatly a decade ago.
The problem is, as the Durham Report showed, the Justice Department followed the ideals of that particular commenter.
The Durham report showed absolutely no such thing.
Yes, it did.
The weaponization of the criminal justice system has been around since at least 2014. See the example of Rick Perry, and the comments on this discussion forum.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3857818#p3857818
Michael mcCrum should have been disbarred for prosecuting Rick Perry.
Excellent piece. I don’t even have any nitpicks this time!
We have to bring back ethical standards to our leadership. You are right that Clinton’s refusal to resign led us down this path…although part of me thinks that an impeachment of him, and Nixon before him, would have been even better than resignations. It would show that our system strongly punishes corrupt behavior and abuses of power…which is better than relying on the honor of men who, as you point out about Trump here, have none.
Of course you’d approve of THAT one!
+I hear your argument, Jack. This is a version of “The Heckler’s Veto”. Which is a reason to stand your ground , even if you are a Narcissist. When is our situation a Zwungahnag(sp?)
Oh, it’s been there for a while.
Missed you declaring or opining on that.
Heh, how much are you paying MA or is he just unconsciously doing the blog a favor?
If the Democrats had any integrity, ethics alarms, or dignity, they would be demanding Biden resign from office for selling National policy to the highest bidder. What is that I hear from the Democrats? Oh, yes. Crickets.
Let’s face facts. There is not a single member of the federal government who is not a complete and total asshole. The US government lies, cheats, steals, and behaves abominably from the top of the food chain down to the lowliest peon.
Given that scenario, the only logical outcome is for citizens to vote for the biggest, baddest asshole who represents their interests. Ethics and logic are in conflict. When ethics and logic conflict, ethics usually loses. People vote for the outcome that hurts them the least, not the one that is the most ethical.
“There is not a single member of the federal government who is not a complete and total asshole. The US government lies, cheats, steals, and behaves abominably from the top of the food chain down to the lowliest peon.’
Oh, you know that’s hyperbole. The majority of the Federal government is ethical; the problem is that a critical mass isn’t.
This does, of course, accurately repeat the mood that elected Trump in the first place. That was the non-vilent equivalent of Jefferson’s periodic revolution theory. But you can’t keep throwing monkey wrenched into the gears in protest: once can be arguably justified, twice in a row is stupid: you break the machine for good.
The issue isn’t just that Trump is unethical: that was obvious, oh, 30 years ago. He can’t be trusted. He is an agent of chaos.
It is sort of hyperbolic, but I actually cannot think of a single elected official who consistently acts in an ethical manner. This could be because of the failings of the press, or it could be because there aren’t any.
I think the machine is already broken for good. Centralization broke it, and the powers that be are not going to let it be decentralized. The federal government is in a crisis of ethics, a crisis of competence and a crisis of corruption.
Throwing a monkey wrench in the gears didn’t change anything the first time, so people will keep trying it with bigger monkey wrenches. People are way madder now than they were the first time. If anyone in either party had responded to the monkey wrench with any kind of compassion or understanding, it might now be possible to deescalate the protests. Unfortunately, both parties reacted to the monkey wrench like someone set their britches on fire. I think the protesters want the machine broken at this point.
“If the Democrats had any integrity, ethics alarms, or dignity, they would be demanding Biden resign from office for selling National policy to the highest bidder.”
There is no evidence that he has done this.
Actually, what I prefer happens is that Trump stays on as candidate (so Dems, and most impotently MSM don’t get this victory lap), but GOP voters realize that just about any outer nominee would have much better stand of winning in ‘24, and choose someone else.
I’m not holding my breath, however.
It’s all for nothing anyway; expanding democracy “strengthening” measures (mail-in and early voting, with weak voter validation, and ballot harvesting) will ensure Dems victories for years to come
The fact that Trump’s poll numbers go up with each indictment makes that scenario to risky to relay on, no?
It’s incredibly risky. If they nominate someone besides Trump, Trump will run as a third party spoiler. And if he’s not in prison by Election Day (or maybe even if he is), he’ll split the vote enough to ensure that Biden wins in 2024.
So no…don’t do that…that would be terrible… 😉
You just reminded me to finish my review of all the worst Presidents to see if Biden is the worst ever.
Well, looking at the bottom few, let’s see what we have: Carter was an incompetent who projected weakness to the world. Wilson was a racist, led us into a war we probably didn’t need to get involved in, and hid the fact that he was seriously cognitively impaired from the world. Buchanan was a passive incompetent who did nothing to stop a civil war from starting right before him. Pierce was a depressed sot. Grant looked the other way on a lot of graft he should have seen. Harding was a corrupt man who allowed corruption to get out of control on his watch.
Frankly, I think Biden combines all the worst of these guys and he has none of the few good qualities they had among them. He isn’t trying to pull a nation sundered back together like Grant (quite the opposite), he doesn’t have the sense not to interfere with a recovering economy like Harding, he doesn’t have the excuse of personal tragedy right on the cusp of taking office like Pierce, and as for having a decent character like Carter and Wilson thought they had? Ha!
If there were not two opinions on the law there would be no need for courts.
For the record, my earlier statements were based on readings or evaluations by Joe DiGenova and Jonathan Turley regarding Trump’s claims. I have neither the time nor inclination to provide citations for every bit of information that helps shape my understanding of an issue, nor will I simply accept the opinions of others whose expertise is unknown. If I have made a statement in error it is because my source has been contradicted by a judicial decree or that I was ignorant of new information that has come to light.
With that said my lay opinion is that the raid on Mar a Lago was unnecessary and designed to promote the idea of Trump’s illegal activities in the eyes of the government. The FBI also made points to very publicly arrest others in an massive early morning swat raid (Roger Stone) after giving CNN a heads up to the raid or taking another ( name escapes me) into custody at Reagan airport leading him away in ankle shackles. Typically, these cases people are given the opportunity to surrender to authorities. This is for all propaganda purposes. For this reason I believe the DOJ, DHS and others are being used to undermine the administration’s opposition.
As a non- lawyer who believes in the Constitution and fair dealing I will stipulate that I cannot say what Trump is accused of doing is right or wrong. However, I am not blind to what should be obvious that the Biden DOJ is doing everything they can to dirty up Biden’s opposition in the next election either to ensure he is the nominee who they believe they can beat or to make sure they can use the 14th amendment to prevent him from running.
If I recall correctly it was a Major Vindman who believed that a call to ask about the Biden activities in Ukraine amounted to an abuse of office because Biden might run against Trump. The Democrats impeached Trump for simply asking Ukraine to look into it. From that point on it was non stop commentary that Trump wanted a quid pro quo. Yet nothing was promised either way unlike Biden’s very public statement about the prosecutor he wanted fired.
If I had my druthers I would prefer that Trump did not run but I also know that him dropping out would reinforce these tactics in the future. In all honesty I don’t know what the best course is.
Where I stand: The case against Trump has not been adjudicated and the last time I checked he has a presumption of innocence.
Whether or not all of government is ethically corrupt is immaterial. The potential to become wealthy with government resources is highly corrosive. Too many stand to lose too much if we had efficient government. Government has grown too big and carpetbaggers from all types of interest groups are feeding the appetites of power seeking officials who grow rich and powerful because they have the authority to dole out the trillions of dollars that current and future residents are compelled to provide them. There is a reason that the richest counties in the United States surround DC.
“ The Democrats impeached Trump for simply asking Ukraine to look into it. From that point on it was non stop commentary that Trump wanted a quid pro quo. Yet nothing was promised either way unlike Biden’s very public statement about the prosecutor he wanted fired.”
You must have missed where I demolished these claims from Michael Ejercito. In short: Trump did not merely “ask,” he actually withheld congressionally approved aid—as he suggested to Zelensky he would do—until he was caught in this quid pro quo, which he had tried to cover up. Biden made a public statement about his demand because unlike Trump, Biden was forwarding official US policy, backed up by Congress and our allies, in demanding the firing of the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor. Trump’s demand was made purely for his own political gain.
This ties in as to why they wanted the laptop suppressed- because, at a minimum, it reinforced the idea that a second look was warranted.