I think the question we need to ask Hazir is, did someone hack your forum account?
Printable View
I think the question we need to ask Hazir is, did someone hack your forum account?
Don't worry about my account, worry about your Republic. I have serious doubts it can survive a second Trump presidency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
There is no position comparable to that of the President of the United States when it comes to secrets of any level. You can maintain the illusion that working in the administration is the same as being the personification of the administration, but it's not. And that makes every reasoning on the basis that the rules are the same for the President synthetic. The damage to result from this case is unpredictable, but I am not so blind that I think that the satisfaction of seeing Trump in Orange overalls is worth risking it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Fascinating metaphysics at play here. I have questions.
a) What the hell does 'personification of the administrator' mean?
b) The indictment refers to things that took place after he left office so even if the law doesn't apply to the president, which it does, but if it didn't then surely that immunity can't continue after a president leaves office?
c) He's also been indicted for obstruction of justice, lying to the federal government and withholding & concealing documents used an official proceeding - does being a former president convey immunity to those as well?
d) Trump's aid Walt Nauta has also been indicted along side Trump for the above charges (but not holding on to the classified material, as this was Trump alone), does Trump's 'personification of the administration' immunity extended to other people who are indicted for the same actions as Trump, or should just Nauta be charged alone?
The President is the executive. That shouldn't be so hard to understand. Which also means that being the President and serving at the pleasure of the President are not the same and logically actually shouldn't be covered by the same regulatory framework. For all I know the whole indictment isn't even constitutionally sound. Nothing tells me that impeachment isn't the actual route for what Trump is accused of.
You say it all happened after he left office. The only thing we are certain of is that he didn't declare nor surrender documents. We don't know how and when the documents got there. But an educated guess would tell us that the documents left government premises before Biden took his oath of office. That would mean the transfer was legal regardless of the statutory framework. Trump did it by the room full. But if this leads anywhere close to conviction, next time that will no longer matter. Any slip of memory combined with a search warrant will lead to 'criminal former Presidents' going to jail.
Walt Nauta isn't a former President. And I am not talking about immunity, I am talking about an intrinsically flawed set of rules being applied BECAUSE TRUMP WAS PRESIDENT.
If the White House wants to address this problem it should make better rules about how to deal with the paperwork of an outgoing President and the paperwork of the outgoing President alone. For his underlings the Law will have to do. Which makes sense because without the Executive having people working for them, there wouldn't be any need for espionage or secrecy acts.
Unless of course you want to defend the President committing an act of espionage would not fit the definition of the reasons for impeachment and conviction by the Senate.
Instead of making "educated" guesses, why not try reading?Quote:
You say it all happened after he left office. The only thing we are certain of is that he didn't declare nor surrender documents. We don't know how and when the documents got there. But an educated guess would tell us that the documents left government premises before Biden took his oath of office.
Quote:
At 12:00 p.m. on January 20, 2021, TRUMP ceased to be president. As he departed the White House, TRUMP caused scores of boxes, many of which contained classified documents, to be transported to The Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, where he maintained his residence. TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain those classified documents.
The President is the President until his successor tales his oath of office. Once that moment has passed the former President has no say whatsoever about removing anything from government premises, including the White House. Now, you tell me who can go into the White House, not working for, or at the invitation of the President? You think an educated guess is not possible about the chances of Trump removing anything from the White House after the Oath of Office?
Just for fun, go to Washington DC and visit the White House, then tell us how likely you think it is a person without authorization can walk in and walk out a significant number of boxes or even one box. The White House by the way is worth a visit
And if this still happened, then someone of the Biden White House actually committed a crime.
Anyway, enjoy your ecstasy over this indictment. Let's wait and see if you are still so happy after it's all said and done.
His account hasn't been hacked, he's just incapable of understanding the difference between innocent mishandling of documents and criminal obstruction of justice. Because he's having another debate, with people who aren't present here in the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Not having a different debate, just telling you that this all isn't as great and good as you think it is. Not even if it gives Liberals the satisfaction of seeing Trump being put behind bars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
To be honest, I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say here, but I think you're saying that when Trump ordered the boxes moved to Mar-a-Largo, he was still technically president? But the president leaves the white house after a new one is sworn in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
So, uh, he wasn't.
And yet, anything done right up till the new President has been sworn in is legal. Right up till that moment. The first line of defense will be that what was legal didn't become illegal automatically. Not with the USA executive having the habit of giving former Presidents security briefings until Biden decided to stop this with Trump. Don't be surprised if this comes up in the next 2 to 3 years. It also works great in the narrative of this being a premeditated witch hunt.
But, since Trump moved the boxes as he was leaving the white house, and he didn't leave the white house until after Biden was sworn in, he moved the boxes after he stopped being president which he was not authorised to do.
And, even if we concede that point and say he was still technically president when he asked for the boxes to be moved it still doesn't help his case in the slightest: he still should have returned them when asked to do so since this was over a year later and it was long past the point where he had any business having those documents. So he's still on the hook for holding documents he wasn't authorised to, he's still on the hook for showing them to people weren't authorised to see them, he's still on the hook for conspiring with what's his face to conceal the documents and he's still on the hook for obstruction of justice.
So the case is actually about obstruction of justice in a case where the first line of defense will be there was no reasonable cause for a suspicion of the law having been broken. Again, no matter how smart the DoJ people are, this is going to look awful and the damage is going to be immense.
And in case you wonder; I wasn't joking when I questioned the constitutionality of holding the President accountable under the Espionage act. Do we really need a judge to test the Trump doctrine that he actually could de-classify documents at will?
This is all taking place about a year after Trump has left office. At this point, there is no reasonable grounds to say that Trump had any possible legal right to retain the classified documents. He is taking actions designed to both conceal the fact that he had any classified documents at all, and then later, trying to conceal the extent of the documents he had by returning a fraction of them and then saying 'yup, that's all of them'. It's pretty open and shut case here, justice had the shit obstructed out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Also he lied to the Feds. Always a bad plan, they hate that. Earnest people, Poli Sci majors in good suits. They don't like shenanigans.
The idea that a former president can declassify documents over a year after they left office is absurd.Quote:
And in case you wonder; I wasn't joking when I questioned the constitutionality of holding the President accountable under the Espionage act. Do we really need a judge to test the Trump doctrine that he actually could de-classify documents at will?
All this?
There is no clear indication the documents were moved out of the White House after the inauguration of Biden. The issue only started once Trump had sent some documents to a federal archive (AFAIK) which then triggered a demand for the delivery of all classified documents. If Trump had any level of seriousness this whole matter wouldn't have come out.
Trump has claimed before that declassication can be done 'at will' by the President and that his mere treatment of documents could imply declassication. Now, there's a lot to be said against that. However, Trump's 'theory' also hasn't been tested in court. And there is no way of telling what the outcome of such a test would be. Is the President really held to write down what he intends to do about the confidentiality of a paper because of what in essence is an internal policy paper about which of his workers are allowed to see which paper, but can't really cover his person in a meaningful way because there is no secret so big he's not allowed to know all details of it.
Yes I know, the law is there for everyone bladibla, but we're talking about a law here that in no meaningful way regulates what the President can or cannot make public. Trump could literally have filled out the paperwork and put the boxes on the Mall without any repercussions. At least no legal ones.
You are having a different debate because what you're talking about is not even tangentially related to the case. All I see here is a lot of flailing at imaginary "liberal" opponents not actually present in the thread, over vague ideas not actually relevant to the thread. Okay, great, you're mad at some libs you met at a dinner party. Sounds like a great topic for a blog post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
It would really have been helpful if you'd read what the charges are before debating them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
There was reasonable cause for suspicion that the law had been broken. After NARA discovered that a number of documents were missing, Trump's own people confirmed that they had boxes of documents that should've been turned over. This ultimately led to the discovery that not only had highly classified documents been mishandled, but Trump and his people had knowingly and actively attempted—on multiple occasions—to illegally hold on to those documents, even after it had become clear that they should've been turned over.Quote:
in a case where the first line of defense will be there was no reasonable cause for a suspicion of the law having been broken.
Notwithstanding the issue of criminality, getting those classified documents back was crucial to assessing potential risk to US security interests—including the identity and safety of HUMINT assets—and mitigating any risks that might arise from their compromise. That's without even considering the risk of US allies becoming more reluctant to share intel with the US.
The steps the DOJ has taken to investigate Trump—including subpoenas and warrants—have been approved by judges and grand juries, who have found reasonable cause to suspect specific criminal activity. When you say "the first line of defense will be there was no reasonable cause for a suspicion of the law having been broken" it just tells me you haven't read the first thing about the case you're discussing.
Trump is literally on tape saying he can't declassify the documents in question because he's no longer president. That's his "doctrine".Quote:
And in case you wonder; I wasn't joking when I questioned the constitutionality of holding the President accountable under the Espionage act. Do we really need a judge to test the Trump doctrine that he actually could de-classify documents at will?
I think we do have a pretty strong idea about what the outcome of such a test would be. From a practical standpoint, it's not really a viable system where the president can just declassify stuff without leaving any record, anywhere, that the status of a document has changed and essentially just by looking at the document and thinking, in his internal monolog, "I declassify you".Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
And anyway, it's moot because there's transcript of him saying a) he cannot declassify the document he is showing to a staffer because he's no longer president and b) admitting that he did not declassify the document when he was president.
But he didn't.Quote:
Trump could literally have filled out the paperwork and put the boxes on the Mall without any repercussions.
While I disagree with Hazir on this topic, I would like to point out that GW did actual damage to the USA. Seeing that POTUS can use the US military to carry out a personal vendetta that ends up killing thousands of US citizens along with thousands of Iraqi's, and without any acknowledgement of wrong doing, must be the precedent Trump uses to set himself above the law. If we had locked up GWB for his crimes, Trump would never have happened. :p
Actually, the first thing Trump's lawyers will do is ask the judge to dismiss the entire case. And to Trump what matters less what the outcome of this stage is, than that it actually takes place and takes a long time to decide upon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
What Trump says about what he can't do after stepping down from the Presidency says nothing about what he could do while being the President. What you don't seem to get is that this case which centers on the obstruction of justice rests on the foundation of that what Trump did before this obstruction was actually a crime. You jumped to that conclusion and go for the low hanging fruit. Trump's lawyers will not settle for just talking about the part where their client did something that could lead to a probable conviction. They will be fighting all along the way and this case will drag on for years, while looking more and more like a political hatchet job by the DoJ and extension Joe Biden. And for your information; it wouldn't be so difficult to portray it like that with the history of several governments in the past have made blatant use of the Espionage act to silence opponents.
P. S. : even at the beginning of this whole mess, the case is a lost cause for the DoJ in the public eye. A majority of Americans want this to end in a pardon. That includes a good number of people who think he's probably guilty, but also that the indictment is politically driven.
There isn't a legal difference between the two. It's why prosecutorial discretion exists as a concept. And it's why I agree with Hazir that successfully pursuing this is going to have unpleasant ramifications extending well past any possible second Trump administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Of course there's a legal difference between the two. For starters, Trump's removal of documents and his obstruction constitute separate charges in the indictment, under different statutes. Obstruction of justice is a crime against the justice system itself, and people have been convicted for obstruction of justice without committing other crimes. Govt. officials mishandle documents all the time, but obstructing an investigation of such mishandling is exceedingly rare—certainly to the extent and with the determination we've seen here.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Well, we have already seen that the ramifications from not punishing criminals like GWB and Boris and Erdogan and Netanyahu leads to more people like them in positions of power. The failure to even acknowledge the crimes of GWB is why we are now dealing with today's abuses of power in the form of Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Obstruction is a different issue. But the reason obstruction exists is because otherwise it's a very effective way of avoiding conviction on the merits. If, as Hazir thinks, the base action is actually legal than pursuing obstruction on it is a lot like pursuing felony murder for a cop or security guard shooting your fellow criminal to death. Thoroughly wrongheaded and a perversion of the justice system. While I disagree with Hazir's take on the legality of Trump's actions wrt the original handling of the documents, pursuing obstruction on something you often wouldn't choose to prosecute (seen with Pence and Biden already this term) presents something of a similar issue. And it does guarantee an even more poisoned well politically, after the results of Clinton's obstruction impeachment (itself an example, IMO, of obstruction being used in lieu of an actual crime being committed rather than because interference made prosecution impossible the way it was intended).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Interesting that you mention Erdogan As it happens the man with the best chances to defeat him in the presidential elections was ineligible because he was entangled in a case about him showing contempt for the high selection council. That is a crime under the Turkish criminal statute and can be punished with time in prison. Which also excludes a person from elected office. Even if he’s already in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
You sure you’re comfortable with lawfare becoming the norm?
That’s not very different than what I am saying about the chilling effects of the prosecution for future politicians. My ‘ideas on the legality’ of Trump’s actions should be in in the light of him being who he is; electorally the case could easily turn into a smorgasbord of opportunities for mischief with political repercussions. One of those being a serious risk of a second Trump Presidency. I don’t say that what he did was legal, but my opponents too easily assume what he did was illegal. Last time i checked an indictment wasn’t just another word for judicial ruling. They are way too happy about the idiot seemingly having been caught redhanded, to consider the paint could be rinsed off too.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Americans: Noooo, you can't imprison a former president just because they committed crimes, what if people who constantly lie and operate in bad faith say it's politically motivated? We need to consider the non-specific consequences i can't express or define uhwuwuwuwuwuwuwuwuwu
France, who has imprisoned three prime ministers and presidents since 2010: just ze one prezidant? zese are... how you say? zese are rookie numbers
Different things aren't the same. Being annoying, excessively sloppy and consistently talking nonsense shouldn't be lightly used as a way to criminalize your political opponents. This case for example taught me that the Espionage Act has been a useful tool to silence political opponents from its inception. Trump would, if convicted, not even be the first presidential candidate to run a campaign from prison.
But sure, go ahead with a prosecution that serves your sensitivities better than actual justice. It might put away a man you couldn't put away for January 6th. The weakness of your arguments may also put him back in the White House and a colorful group of Democrat leaders in the dock. I don't know what's so a-specific about that. And once prison is the perspective of stepping down as a leaders, well, that's not a great incentive to give up power at all.
I am once again asking you to read the indictment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I am not going to gratify you. I will not read the indictment. You think it's smart to prosecute politicians you don't like for egregious sloppiness, because that's pretty much all you can pin them down with. I say it's not a smart strategy, and no amount of detail about how sloppy Trump exactly was and with whom is not going to convince me otherwise.
The narrative around this is going to be that Biden couldn't win in a honest political confrontation, so he sent his dogs at the DoJ after Trump for a technicality. But in Trump's case the vast majority aren't going to see it as a good and smart trick to get a real criminal behind bars (read Al Capone), but as a politicking to eliminate an opponent.
The presiding judge appearantly already showed her doubts about the classified nature of the documents with a classification indicator. That promises a lot of fun for the actual case. And damage to the judiciary too I'm certain.
embarrassingQuote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Transformation into RandBlade complete
In other news; I committed a crime on the 12th of May 2023. My crime was driving on a Bulgarian highway without being in possession of a valid vignette a required by Bulgarian law. This surprised me very much since an electronic vignette had been issued to me 2 days prior to the date on which I committed my crime. Upon showing the file to the controlling officer she told me that where my car had a 9 the 'other car' obviously had a 0. The fact that it was me who had paid the vignette did nothing to change her mind. I was given a fine on the spot and paid €36 with my Visa credit card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
So, I hope that rebuilds your trust in the legal system again; somewhere, some crimes are being met with the full harshness of the law.
Why won't I read the indictment? Because I have better use for my time that finding out what excites you so much about the crime Trump is going to answer for in court. Do you seriously think I doubt that man should be in jail already for the actual high crimes committed on January 6th?
:haha: (I wish I knew where to find the animated one literally rolling across the board)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Thank you Steely, that just made my morning.
It has been reported that the evidence turned over to Trump's legal team includes DNA analysis of cum spots on the Kim Jong Un love letter. :eek:
Sorry, I forgot to include the link...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zDXVw0aatQ
Mildly funny, but also surpringly on point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Hazir, you may be right that our Republic is in trouble, but it's not because of this indictment or the DoJ appearing to prosecute for political purposes. Trump was bending/breaking the law for decades, but got away with it by paying millions in fines, then went back to the con/grift by abusing the loopholes in our legal system, rinse repeat. He took it to a whole new level when he entered politics -- and used the GOP as enablers -- to abuse loopholes our political system. Right out of Nixon's playbook that If a president does it, by definition it's not illegal.
Being is right that things might have turned out differently if Nixon had been pardoned *after* he'd been indicted and/or prosecuted, but the precedent that was set (and the message that it sent) was that the Executive is above other laws, and immune. That included Agnew's plea deal, too. But how fucked up would it have been to have a criminal VP replace a criminal President? And it continued on with Reagan's administration, Iran Contra and Col. Ollie North getting his own show on Fox TV. Every administration has followed this pattern, so maybe *this* is the time for DoJ to set a new precedent? Because we all know congress is broken and still hasn't made a law requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns.
Anyway, I think you're making too many assumptions about this first indictment. Even if he's found guilty (and that's a big IF) there's more to come. Jan. 6 and the fake electors scheme is much more important because it will test all the fundamentals where laws and politics meet. Even if he's convicted of Obstruction of Justice, or Conspiracy to Defraud the US or xyz criminal act -- Trump won't spend a single day in prison. He's entitled to Secret Service protection every day for the rest of his life, and they can't be expected to suffer for his crimes.
I have no problems with going after him for real crimes. I have a problem with going after him for spurious reasons, which could easily turned into weapons against politicians 'we' don't despise.
I would applaud it if they could make the attempted interference with the electoral process stick. But seeing people cheering the idea that he might get into prison for being sloppy and pompous fills me with a terrible chill.
And now it seems he's tricking his followers into paying for his legal costs.
If "going after him" (Trump) for "real crimes" doesn't include misuse of classified documents, let alone a conspiracy in an attempted coup, then what does? Your concern about his followers paying for his legal costs has roots in campaign finance laws, which are shit-based and toothless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Seriously Hazir, how do you think we should hold a pathological liar and serial grifter accountable?
The United States, by tradition, doesn't, at that level. Richard Nixon, who did nothing wrong, committed actual verifiable treason but Lyndon Johnson decided not the charge him with anything since it wasn't gentlemanly. And then Nixon went on to become the president. And because those god damned Kennedies drove him nuts, well, there was the burglary into the dem offices by his cadre of morons, and he resigned, but then Ford pardoned him for everything. And what's funny in the after-math is that Nixon is blamed for Watergate as being a crook, and not him doing a treason with the Vietnam peace talks.
Of course Trump is seen as an aberration, but pretty much every US president has been involved in some sort of atrocity or another, shit Truman nuked two cities and no one batted an eye! And never mind all the "founding fathers" who personally owned slaves, geez Louise.
Trump is awful, and maybe they'll get him for his sexting crimes or whatever, but it's pretty well established that no one wants to go after the POTUS since the office is considered important and it's politically inconvenient to do anything about it; after all, most influential people in the US harbour desires of attaining that office themselves, and who wants to ruin a good, pristine office?